Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House of Music/archive2


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017.

House of Music

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about a 1996 studio album by the R&B band Tony! Toni! Toné!. It was their fourth and last album, a platinum seller, and widespread critical success, deemed by some critics as their best work, an influence on 1990s neo soul, and a masterpiece of 1990s R&B music. The previous nomination for featured status received support votes from and  but not the requisite commentary to establish a consensus for promotion, thus its closure two weeks ago. Dan56 (talk) 23:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Past supports
Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for the first FAC. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 23:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Support as my last vote on this issue. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Magnolia677
The entire track listing section is unsourced. Is there a way to verify this large section of the article? Magnolia677 (talk) 03:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , I've made a note that it was taken from the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great. I also moved the image right.  Thanks for your hard work on this article!  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - One cosmetic issue. MOS:LINKSTYLE states that items within quotations should not generally be linked.  I noticed this a few places in the article, but none of the linked topics seem crucial to reader's understanding.  Your call.  Thanks again.  Magnolia677 (talk) 11:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Garagepunk66
I just started looking at the article and I see a lot that looks really good. I'll need to comb through it. I noticed you have a statement mentioning the cover artwork. I was wondering if there is enough information out there on the topic to be able to delve into that subject a little more (if that is possible)? Garagepunk66 (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * , at this article by Albumism, there's a one sentence describing the band's attire in the cover photo, but I'm not sure it's a reliable/notable source. Otherwise, there's nothing that can be said about the cover except the photographer credit from the liner notes. Dan56 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * That's fine--I was just checking to make sure. In light of the lack of published information about the artwork, the statement you have is fine.  I think that should suffice.  I also think the source is fine for this situation and can be considered reliable in this context, because it is reiterating what is in the liner notes and what we see with our own eyes in the artwork. Garagepunk66 (talk) 04:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence about the band's attire in the photo based on the article . Dan56 (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Interesting point. Garagepunk66 (talk) 05:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by JDC808
Support: I just read the article top to bottom, looking to see if I could find anything. If there was one thing I could say, and this was the only thing that made me look twice while reading, it would be that the length of the first paragraph in the lead could fool someone, as it is actually only three sentences. You could replace the semicolon in the third sentence with a period, but it is fine regardless if you do or don't. The article is very well written and it is well referenced. Great job! If you have some time, would you mind taking a look at my my FAC. -- JDC808  ♫  21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by TarkusAB
Support: The only comment I have is that it seems the band both reunited before the album and broke up after. I think some more detail about the band coming off hiatus (if it can be found) would fit nice into a Background section, and the consequential breakup could be added on somewhere. But otherwise, I think the article is well-written, goes into a fair amount of depth, and is well-sourced. This is coming from someone who isn't too familiar with WP:ALBUM's guidelines. TarkusAB 12:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The breakup is discussed in the third paragraph of the "Release and reception" section; Sons of Soul elaborates on their hiatus before this album, so I kept it short here to avoid a content fork. Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Cartoon network freak
Support: I don't see any major flaws with this article, thus supporting its promotion to FA status. However, you may ask someone to undergo a copy edit on the article to make the content even better to read. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Ian Rose
Taking a cue from Cartoon network freak, I've recused from coord duties to copyedit. I may or may not support outright (it looks to me that image and source reviews are still needed in any case) but no special concerns re. prose and comprehensiveness. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I made a request a few days ago for a source/image review. Dan56 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Image review
Good ALT text too.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:21, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * File:House of Music.jpg: Non-free album cover used to illustrate the album in the infobox, which seems OK for me. Rationale seems OK as well.
 * File:Raphael Saadiq.jpg: Free image on Commons. Photo of one of the creators, who is discussed in the adjacent section. Image has good EXIF and seems to come from Flickr, originally. Source link is broken, however.
 * The Flickr user no longer has an account there. And Wayback Machine cannot locate an archive of the link. Dan56 (talk) 22:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Lovin' You TTT.ogg: Song sample, which is apparently discussed in the caption as well as in the adjacent section. Might merit some more discussion in the adjacent section, so far it seems a wee bit bare bones to me. Non-free rationale seems fine to me otherwise.

Source review

 * Everything that needs a citation has one, and all of the cites are to sources of encyclopedic quality and are properly formatted. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

John

 * Looking at prose, I tried removing "The record also received widespread acclaim from critics" from the lead as this is true of almost any successful and noteworthy work. At best, padding; at worst puffery. I imagine there is likely to be more like this in the body. --John (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually it isn't too bad. An "eventally" and a few too many quotes. --John (talk) 07:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I've paraphrased a few quotes. Dan56 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Closing note: In all honesty, I'd be a little happier here if we had a few more comprehensive reviews to go with some of these supports, but neither Dank, Ian or John have found any major issues. There is certainly consensus to promote this, so I don't think there is much point holding this up any longer. Any further issues can be raised on the talk page. Sarastro1 (talk) 23:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.