Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Late Registration/archive2

Late Registration

 * Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Late Registration (2005), the second studio album by American rapper Kanye West. The album marked a distinctive change in style for West and was a widespread critical success, which has also received much retrospective acclaim. Five singles were released for promotion, including the international hit "Gold Digger", while the album performed well commercially in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The GA review of this article came about way back in 2012 before I was even a user of this site, though I have regularly edited it over the past few years. I recently held a FAC for the article that may have failed, but I took on the comments from it and a subsequent peer review for improvement to submit for FAC once more! K. Peake 07:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

 * "Late Registration was often viewed as a vast progression " the phrase "was often viewed" almost creates an implication that this has changed, and I don't think you mean to imply that. Also, "vast" seems a bit strong. Maybe "Late Registration was seen as a considerable improvement" or similar? You could include "by a number of reviewers" if you deem what I wrote vague.
 * I changed to has been and removed the usage of vast, while keeping progression. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The album led to West receiving eight nominations at the 48th Annual Grammy Awards, including the award of Best Rap Album, which it won." I would cut "the award of".
 * Done. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "while reaching the top 10 in nine other countries, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom." I might change the second half to "including the United Kingdom and Ireland" (mention the country with larger population first
 * Done, not only is there no specific rule on alphabetical order for the lead but also the album was more successful in the UK. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "It eventually reached more than 3,000,000 copies sold in the US " I would simplify as "It eventually sold more than 3,000,000 copies in the US"
 * Done, the previous was a bit too wordy. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "became highly imitated" maybe "was widely imitated"
 * Changed to something similar, rearranging the sentence for flow. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The rapper gathered interest in Brion's music while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, reacting positively to his score," Maybe "The rapper heard and liked Brion's score while watching the 2004 film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind"
 * Done. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "after only one afternoon in the studio" I would move this earlier in the sentence, to after "discovered".
 * Done, adding when to the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "recording it in over a year" Over a year sounds indefinite by itself. Will sources support "just over a year"?
 * Yes, but I used slightly since that is a better tone for Wiki. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "fellow Hollywood locations" "fellow" reads oddly when we're talking about places
 * Used other instead, writing further sessions earlier on in the sentence. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "working in the studio" Are we talking about Sony? If so, I'd say so. If we're talking generally, I'd say "studio work"
 * This is actually not specified, so I simply changed to begin recording material. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "a sample" link to sampling (music)
 * Not done, as this has already been linked earlier in the body. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "and ensuring all being synchronized " maybe "and ensuring all were synchronized"
 * Done. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "completely reconfigure the entire song in a manner that its verses are built around the rhythm of his vocals, " maybe substitute "so that" for "in a manner that".
 * Done, also changed to the verses for consistency with the choruses part. --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What are "raw instruments"? Is there a way the reader can understand what is meant?
 * The source originally uses real instruments, but I replaced with the term authentic in prose since that reads smoother and doesn't sound potentially biased. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Kim noticed a clear difference between West's the album and West's previous work, stating, " some problem with the prose here.
 * Done using the term heavy, unless large would work better here? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you link "outro" to something?
 * I needn't do, per WP:OVERLINK. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "features the last vocals fading out as various bells and whistles are incorporated, succeeded by the bass synthesizer" Are these really bells and whistles? Given that this can mean something extraneous, I'd try to make it clearer that these actual sounds are meant if so.
 * The actual source (PopMatters, listed as generally reliable) says that various bells and whistles are used. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "all of which initially come in brief staccato bursts and act" I think come should be comes and act should be acts
 * Done, changing the preceding part as well to be less wordy. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "A University of North Carolina scholar" Why not name the scholar?
 * Done. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * " In his analysis, the former" it is unclear who is meant.
 * Replaced with the album, per the sentence's language making it clear he is talking about the later one. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "On the bonus track "Diamonds from Sierra Leone", West links Sierra Leone's civil war to the jewellery trade.[7][51]" This is, I think, the third time you've discussed this track. Can't this sentence be placed with one of the other two?
 * Done, rewording slightly. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The rapper was then supposed to support U2's Australian concerts on their Vertigo Tour in March 2006, until the shows were postponed.[72]" I might say "but" instead of "until".
 * Done. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "who both served their roles for Partos" What does this mean?
 * Removed the "who both served their roles" part and added the company before Partos, as that is what this refers to. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Dropout Bear is an animated figure of an animal, and probably should be referred to as "which" rather than "who".
 * Removed who, but used alternate language from which still. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "and shows West serving the role of a cab driver in an imaginary city." I might say "taking" rather than "serving"
 * I decided to use taking on. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "and what is acheivable within hip hop's appropriate boundaries.[27]" Appropriate?
 * Changed to traditional, per this being the truly "appropriate" term. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * " and assured that West is arrogant, "only that's not why he always samples".[26]" I'm not sure you can use "assured" in that way.
 * Reworded most of this. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Late Registration appeared on year-end best album lists for 2005 by numerous publications, including being named the best album of the year by Spin,[103] Time,[45] and USA Today.[104] Rolling Stone also gave the album this ranking," Appearing on a year-end album list is not a ranking.
 * Changed to this accolade. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "It scored a 107-point lead, standing as the narrowest margin in the poll's history.[108] " Is this going to mean anything to the reader?
 * This is historic, especially with Robert Christgau being a veteran critic, so it can be kept. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Late Registration was West's second consecutive album to be rated "XXL" by XXL, the magazine's highest rank, which has been awarded to only 16 other hip hop albums.[112]" Given that this is a 2005 source you're citing from, "has been" should likely be "had been"
 * Done, adding by 2005 at the end. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "and the staff noted that West's ambition to be "bigger than hip-hop" was correct.[116]" How can an ambition be correct? Do you mean "realized"?
 * Reworded quite a bit. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Late Registration was ultimately nominated for the award at the ceremony, " I gather it did not win the Album of the Year and that should be made clearer.
 * Done. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Despite West's previously instated problem of failure to win, he was happy with eight nominations.[130] Both "instated" and "failure to win" sound like odd phrasings.
 * Reworded to "having stated that he would have a problem with not winning". --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "and gave him nearly double that of The College Dropout's first-week sales." Maybe "and gave him first-week sales nearly double those of The College Dropout."
 * Done. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "In the United Kingdom, the album reached number two on the UK Albums Chart for the issue date of September 5, 2005, being prevented from topping the chart by McFly's album Wonderland; however, both albums were new entries that week.[155] " Why the "however"?
 * Removed that and I don't really think both debuting is notable anyway. --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * All covered, are you sure there is nothing left and will you now support? --K. Peake 07:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Massive thanks, I really mean it! --K. Peake 12:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ErnestKrause
Following up on my peer review comments on the Peer Review page for this featured article candidate, I'm supporting this article for promotion. Its well-written and has a comprehensively researched bibliography and references. Its also been previously proof-read and edited at its successful GAN by another editor. It should be intereting to see other editors comment on this article during assessment here. Supporting this nomination. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, I am very proud to have received your support! --K. Peake 16:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Media review from Elias.
📝see my work 03:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC) 📝see my work 07:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC) 📝see my work 09:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC) 📝see my work 23:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take this ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍  ‍ 💬reach out to me
 * File:Late registration cd cover.jpg - cover art. FUR is expansive and the ALT text looks good. Would suggest including an archived version of the source link for posterity
 * Done, with a mention of it being archived in brackets. --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * File:CAM 4037 (175437630) (cropped).jpg - cropped version of this, which was posted to Flickr under a suitable license. Placement in article is appropriate; ALT text and captions are a-ok
 * File:West performing.jpg - while the ALT text, licensing, and caption are OK, this is causing MOS:SANDWICH issues for me on my screen along with the sample. And frankly it comes across as somewhat decorative, as I don't see how an image of a performance strongly corresponds to the songs' composition. Would suggest removing it
 * The reason for inclusion is because it demonstrates a picture of West with his orchestra, who are mentioned as accompanying him on all the songs listed on the text. Also, I moved to the para above instead since it continues into the one below if this is acceptable now? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll allow this, then
 * File:Heymamakanye.ogg - the FUR can use a little more tweaking: "Respect for commercial opportunities / No" ? Caption is alright.
 * I've added more to this now, does it look alright? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All that changed in the "Respect for commercial opportunities" parameter was that "No" became "Yes", which is still not good to me. Usually I see these filled out with "A short audio sample will not harm the commercial viability of the album in any way", so that should suffice.
 * Done, with a few changes. --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The FUR for this article should be good to go then. Won't stop me from passing the review, but if you ask me, the FUR for the "Hey Mama" article itself can also use work.
 * File:Kanye West in Portland.jpg - Relevant, licensed appropriately, good captions and ALT text, etc. etc.
 * File:AlphaCabinet.jpg - placement is relevant to the article, as it accompanies lots of commentary on the album's themes and lyricism. ALT text and captions are good, and this is VRT-confirmed.
 * File:Kanye West Portland Vertigo Tour 2005.jpg - no problems other than its alignment in the article (MOS:IMAGELOC). It's pushing the "Artwork and packaging" subheader to the right of my screen; please move it
 * Done; moved to the left. --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The same issue is still there, only that the Princeton Uni photo is pushing the "Singles" subheader this time
 * I have removed this photo altogether, finding no size that stops it overlapping. --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's good but... you moved the tour photo back to the left, leaving us back with where we started (somewhat).
 * File:Andlinger Center for the Humanities, East Pyne - Princeton University - Princeton, NJ - Princeton University - Princeton, NJ - DSC00970.jpg AND File:Pop Conference 2014 - Robert Christgau 02.jpg - both are properly licensed with good ALT text and captions. The first file is accompanied by a fairly expansive commentary on the packaging, so it's not super decorative; Christgau's picture seems okay to include here given that he's a prominent music critic
 * File:Kanye West at the Brit Awards 2006.jpg - placement in the article makes sense and the caption is OK. Posted to Flickr under appropriate license; ALT text "West performed a song medley at the 26th Brit Awards" seems somewhat ungrammatical to me.
 * I have addressed any of your concerns regarding the media content; do you have any more comments to make? --K. Peake 06:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @K. Peake: struck the addressed concerns, as well as the valid images. Some concerns still remain, e.g. the Brit Awards photo ALT text. ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍  ‍ 💬reach out to me
 * I have fixed the persisting issues and the BRIT Awards one, which I did not notice at first. Any problems remaining? --K. Peake 09:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @K. Peake: almost there, just one more and I'll wrap this up ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍  ‍ 💬reach out to me
 * I have now changed the size of the U2 performance photo if that works? --K. Peake 09:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @K. Peake: sorry, was away from home when you posted. Unfortunately, the photo still pushes the header in my screen... I actually quite liked the size of the image earlier; removing the Princeton Uni photo and keeping the tour photo to the right seems like the best option here, IMO. <b style="font-family:Georgia;border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#962c2e;color:white;">‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"><sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">💬reach out to me
 * Speaking of sizes, almost forgot - to adjust image scale, don't use px (e.g. 190px) and use the |upright= parameter instead, per MOS:UPRIGHT. This goes for the Jon Brion photo, the Kanye in Portland photo, and the Vertigo Tour photo.
 * I have changed all the photos as you requested, except the Jon Brion one that I simply removed a photo size for since the first image being on the left goes best. What do you think now? --@K. Peake 07:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @K. Peake - sorry, almost forgot about this. Yeah, we're done here - pass

Support from 100cellsman
Hi! The only thing I could find from looking through the article is the word "brainstorming" in the Recording section. I can't think of a replacement word at the moment but regardless I won't deduct any points. 웃 O O  02:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have used thinking through instead, if this works? --K. Peake 08:47, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. 웃 O O  09:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Source review - pass
I'll post more tomorrow, but I have an initial question: what's the logic behind when you use the publisher= parameter in cite web, cite news, and cite magazine? Any reasonable rule is fine but it needs to be consistently applied. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My usage of publisher has to do with whether the sources are italicised or not. As for the actual cites, I have used news for any article that is labelled as such and magazine generally for any sources that are those, but I could go through to make sure I always use the mag template when it is appropriate if you wish? --K. Peake 05:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not what I meant to ask. The FAC requirement is consistency, so in a source review I look to see if you are consistent about how you decide to include the publisher and website.  In [11] (referring to this version) you have a publisher and no website name; in [28] you have the reverse -- magazine (which is just an alias for the website parameter) but no publisher parameter.  As you say, the publisher is not italicized, but the magazine/website/work/newspaper parameter is italicized, so the format of the resulting cites differs and is inconsistent unless you have a rule you're applying that I'm not seeing.  For example, some editors always include the work parameter, and only include the publisher parameter where it's not obvious from the work -- so CNN would not get a publisher parameter because the website is CNN so the publisher is obvious, but a cite to Billboard would get both, since the publisher is Nielsen Business Media, Inc.  My question is, how are you deciding which way to enter these cites -- when to use publisher, when to use work, and when to use both?  It doesn't matter what the rule is so long as you're consistent about applying it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:04, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically, I am looking at whether the source being cited is italicised or not to decide if I use publisher or a parameter that italicises. Regarding those examples, CNN is not so I used publisher but Billboard is and having publishers for online sources already citing website or a similar parameter would be excess process, also the consistency is in how I decided to use the parameters. --K. Peake 08:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds reasonable. I'll review on that basis. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 08:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for understanding, also I only use both at once for book sources because it would be too cluttered doing this for online pieces. K. Peake 09:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Footnote numbers refer to this version. I'll restate what I understand your policy on use of the publisher and work parameters, to make sure I understand it, since I'm going to cite what I think are inconsistencies with it: if a source is usually italicized (e.g. Rolling Stone) it will be given the work parameter and no publisher; if it is not usually italicized it will be given the publisher parameter and no work parameter. Here are a couple of cites that don't comply with that. I'll pause there to make sure I haven't misunderstood. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [166] includes both publisher and work.
 * Removed the publisher for consistency with Billboard citations. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dazed and Vibe don't seem to typically italicize their names, but you have them cited with work, not publisher -- [47], [80].
 * Look at the Dazed and Vibe articles to see that you are clearly incorrect here. --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They describe themselves as magazines, so I've struck this since Wikipedia's convention is to italicize magazine titles, but the sites themselves don't appear to use italics. See here -- "Today, Dazed magazine continues to..." and here -- ""VIBE is a leading entertainment and lifestyle brand...".  So I'll take it that even if a source doesn't use italics, if the Wikipedia convention is to use italics then you're using work and not publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [97] gives "MTV Hive" as the publisher, but that's the name of the website; the publisher is MTV.
 * This is not correct; the url is mtvhive.com and MTV Hive is not italicised either, unless you want me to cite one as publisher and the other as via? --K. Peake 06:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that the corporate entity publishing the site was MTV, not MTV Hive. MTV Hive is not a publisher; it's the name of the website.  As you say "MTV Hive" isn't italicized, so your rule would mean you put the publisher in.  You could just make the publisher MTV, which wouldn't make it clear to the reader that this is MTV Hive we're sourcing from; that would work but isn't ideal.  Or you could change your rule to allow use of the website parameter instead of publisher where that provides the reader more information -- here that italicizes MTV Hive, which is not italicized by the source, but that's OK -- it's just a citation formatting convention and happens all the time.  Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:27, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed the publisher to simply MTV now and I'm glad you understand my point about the other publications. --K. Peake 06:53, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, I think we're on the same page now as to how you're using the cite parameters, so I'll continue with a more thorough review -- probably later today. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 18 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Cite journal and cite magazine format differently, so I would suggest looking through your uses of cite journal to see if any of them would be better as cite magazine. For example, Spin magazine ([35]) is more of a magazine than an academic journal.  If there's some rule you're using to choose journal vs. magazine, let me know what it is.
 * I have changed the citations to format as cite journal only when it is suitable, which I think is for only citations using the via parameter since that is using a source like Google Books to cite an actual journal. I kept it for the Spin one though, as this is citing a journalistic piece on Google Books. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but then presumably [112] should not be cite journal, since it has no via parameter. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Also compare formatting of [103] with [35] and [40].
 * Moved Spin in that ref. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have five citations for Spin; here are two.
 * Caramanica, Jon (September 2005). "The Man Who Would Be King". Spin. 21 (9): 99–100. Archived from the original on June 3, 2016. Retrieved November 25, 2015 – via Google Books.
 * McGovern, Kyle; Jenkins, Craig (October 27, 2014). "All 289 Eminem Songs, Ranked". Spin. Archived from the original on April 3, 2015. Retrieved March 10, 2022.
 * What I'm saying is that the Caramanica cite should look like the McGovern/Jenkins cite. I understand that you are using the presence of via as your way to choose journal vs. magazine, but that leads to this inconsistency in presentation.  I haven't run into someone using this exact style before; I think this runs afoul of WP:FACR 2(c), which requires consistent formatting, but if you disagree we can ping in Nikkimaria or another experienced source reviewer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To achieve consistency, I have removed parameters from this ref and changed it to cite magazine instead. --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * When are you using the issue parameter? As far as I can tell your intention is to use it for journals and not magazines; if so I would remove it from [129].  The other journal citations without it could add it, but you may also want to change those to magazine citations per my comment above.
 * Removed. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, but if you're going to keep the cite journal citations above, you would need to add the issue parameter to those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this really needed for every journal parameter? --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the ones that don't have it and I think it's probably OK. The formatting looks different but those publications probably don't track issue and volume as the academic journals do. I'll ping Nikki about it below. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [58] uses the domain name; should be "Amazon", or "Amazon UK" if you prefer.
 * Altered. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Will look at reliability and links next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [57] & [70] both cite Beaumont's God & Monster, which is also listed in Further reading. I see you're citing specific chapters, which is presumably why you're not using an sfn link to the bibliography, but I don't think you need the full bibliographic description in both the citation and the Further reading section.  I would suggest removing it from Further reading, or you could cut the chapters and use sfn, and list it in the bibliography.
 * Done, removing from further reading. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [52], [118], & [129] have the location parameter, but no other cites do.
 * Unless I missed something, these are the only sources that list a location. --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean. Per this Worldcat record, for example, Colossus Books is located in Phoenix, and looking through the web citations I recognize many of them as having citable locations -- the Los Angeles Times and Washington City Paper, for example.  It's rare to use locations in web cites because they can be a pain to figure out, and for web sources it's not a particularly helpful datum, so you might consider just eliminating the location from web cites and news cites.  It should be consistent for books -- either included or excluded is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, my point is that I have only listed locations when the citations themselves mention them, not when that is the general location of the publication. --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Compare formatting of [146] with other Billboard cites. In fact, checking the wikitext, it seems you're using the Webarchive template for a lot of these; that generates output that is inconsistent with the other style.  How do you want to resolve this?
 * I have fixed the formatting, but the webarchive template had been added by other users before I edited this; should I replace these instances or keep them? --K. Peake 18:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that they say "at the Wayback Machine" isn't an issue; it's the sequence of elements of the cite that is inconsistent, and looking at this again I think it should be easy to fix. Compare [107] to [109]: both are citations to Village Voice articles without authors, so should be identically laid out.  The first is "title - archive info - work - retrieval date"; the second is "title - work - archive info - retrieval date".  The work is not part of the webarchive template, so I think if you just go through and move the work title to before the webarchive template in each case you'll have a consistent format. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 18:55, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I have formatted all of the wayback machine citations correctly now; please tell me if I missed any! --K. Peake 10:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Those all look good now. Can you take a look at [194] though?  Looks like there are two separate archive links. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I've struck a couple of points above; there are several threads left so rather than try to keep them going here's a relisting of them. , I'd appreciate your take on the second and third points below.
 * [194] has two separate archive links.
 * I have fixed this now. --K. Peake 18:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You are listing locations "only when the citations themselves mention them, not when that is the general location of the publication". I haven't run into this approach before; you have three citations with location parameters, two for cite web and one for cite journal.  I would have thought this fails the consistency requirement, but I'll defer to Nikki.
 * Basically, I mean when the source itself lists a location as well as an author. --K. Peake 18:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow - you're not including it for something like NYT which lists a location. Do you mean in the byline? That's not necessarily the publication location. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean like this when the specific citation, not the website as a whole, lists a location. --K. Peake 06:50, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that when publication-place is not specified then location is treated as publication place - that isn't correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * So are you saying that I should add publication-place, or simply remove location altogether? --K. Peake 05:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Either: location is optional, so just needs to be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have changed all instances of the location parameter to publication-place, how does this look now? K. Peake 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, but these aren't actually publication places, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by this? --K. Peake 06:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Pinging to make sure I have this right. Kyle, I think the issue is that per the documentation at Template:Cite web, place/location is used for datelined news stories, and publication-place is for the geographic place where the publisher produces their publication. In the link you provide above, Barcelona is the datelined location, which means it should get used for place, for which "location" is an alias. When used in that way the result is "Written at Barcelona" before the title. However, if you use place/location and you don't also use publication-place, then the place/location parameter is treated as the publication place. The result is that your citation linked above is showing Barcelona as the geographic location of the publisher, but in fact it's the dateline location of the story. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Correct. You can either have no location at all, or you can add publication place to the dateline place - you cannot just use dateline place as publication place. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have tried using the place parameter, however this still displays any city directly after the publisher with no written by or similar text, so I have decided to do away with locations altogether. K. Peake 13:17, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, that addresses the last formatting issue. I will look at links and reliability shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:24, 24 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Re adding issue for the cite journals; I can see the issue number might not be available for non-academic sources such as Radio & Records, so the difference in formatting might be unavoidable, once you've decided to use cite journal rather than cite magazine. Nikki, can you comment here as well?  K. Peake is using cite journal when there's a "via" parameter, and cite magazine when there is not, so there are non-academic magazines using cite journal, which means in turn the formatting looks a bit different because there might be no issue number available.  Is this OK?
 * If a piece of metadata isn't provided because it simply doesn't exist in certain cases, that's fine - you can't include what isn't there. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's everything left over from above. Still have to look at reliability and links, which I'll do once these points are settled. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Links and reliability: -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Not a reason to fail the source review, but I don't see the point of archive links such as this.
 * The tool automatically archives all references which led to this, so is there any point in going through just to remove archives? --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I wouldn't bother. I wish the tools didn't do that but it's harmless. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * [158], [185], & [186] are not working and have no archive link.
 * You might want to re-check, as I opened these OCC citations after you posted this and they loaded perfectly fine to show the chart position for the album on each one. --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * They all work for me now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes swisscharts.com/hitparade.ch/Hung Medien a reliable source? Per de:Hitparade.ch it's the work of a single person; if it's now a corporate entity with editorial control, that's fine, but I couldn't find evidence of that.
 * WP:CHARTS lists it as acceptable and this is the go-to guideline for charts, also how many editors does not matter when it is for a company that reports charts. --K. Peake 08:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look and post here again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:21, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * OCC is fine; not sure why I couldn't find the pages describing their ownership before but they're reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I was defending swisscharts.com not OCC with my comments but good thing you recognized the reliability of that source anyway, also has the source review fully passed now or just a section? --K. Peake 13:05, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Damn. Sorry, Kyle, I checked the wrong thing; I did mean this as a pass for the whole source review, but got crossed up when checking the source. I'll take another look now. I've struck the pass but I hope to unstrike it shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A look in the archives at RS doesn't find anything helpful. I looked through the old archives at WT:CHARTS and found this which says they are licensed to provide these charts, but I can't find anything that shows that. A search in Google Books for discussions of them being cited by other reliable sources (which would help establish their reliability) is rather discouraging as it only shows Wikipedia articles repackaged as books.  I also can't find anything about them in news reports.  If you can find old discussions that establish their reliability, or find a link that shows they have some form of licensing to do what they do, or find evidence that they have a corporate structure and exercise editorial control over the charts, or show that external reliable sources (e.g. newspapers, or reliable music sources) treat them as reliable, that would help.  I understand that they're well-established as reliable by the relevant Wikiprojects, but I have to see the evidence myself to pass the source review.  I will keep looking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 13:29, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP:CHARTS where Hung Medien is listed, you can see that the guideline page clearly has its standards set out for reliability of charts. If this is not sufficient, then see archive 16 where a discussion about how reliable swisscharts.com is came up and remember, it is controlled on IFPI Switzerland's behalf. --K. Peake 13:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've started a thread at WT:CHARTS to try to settle this and have also mentioned it on WT:FAC to try to get other music editors to comment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Passing this by... here is an archive from the main Swedish charts page that can be used in place of the Hung Medien site. And here is the Swedish charts page archive with Late Registration's charting that can be used in place of HM also. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 15:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but the thread at WP:CHARTS has resolved everything but the Austrian charts -- all the others are reliable, except for the Irish charts, which have been replaced with a better source. So it's only the Austrian charts at issue now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Pass. The last outstanding question on source reliability has been addressed, so this source review is now a pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks a ton, I feel very proud of this! --K. Peake 07:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * And thank you for your patience! This was a pretty stressful source review; I appreciate your good temper. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:05, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

SUPPORT(!) from Teflon Peter Christ
I would SERIOUSLY reconsider relocating the content about West's Katrina-Bush-blackpeople remarks. It is BOTH out of place in the section it's currently in and faaar more connected to the Legacy paragraph(s). Otherwise, I fall in line with the other supports here! 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:07, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support, however I'm not sure what to do here since a user in the previous candidacy suggested it to be moved from the original legacy position; should I ask another editor since you are making the opposite comments? --K. Peake 06:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but what was their reasoning? Which makes most sense to you? And go for it, ask for a second opinion! But, especially in the case of the quotebox, it clearly does NOT fall in with the section's prevailing theme of marketing efforts, nor does the racial commentary of the quotebox embody or illustrate anything in the section it currently rests. I can't see a case for it remaining there. 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's MY take. Obviously, since it hasn't been brought up here, it stands to reason the article can pass in spite of this. BUT, this is also an opportunity to improve an area of the article, IF my reasoning is correct . . . 𝒮𝒾𝓇 𝒯𝑒𝒻𝓁𝑜𝓃 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have expanded on your point unlike the user in the first candidacy who suggested to move the incident to release and promotion with no actual reasoning, also the hurricane is mentioned in legacy which furthers the idea to move this there as I have now done! K. Peake 09:12, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts
Reviewing articles is not my thing at all, but I think the article is well written and everything seems to be sourced correctly. This nomination have my support. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)