Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive2

Love for Sale (Bilal album)

 * Nominator(s): isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Re-nominating after a controversial source review derailed the previous nomination, which had garnered a good amount of supports otherwise. I replaced a few of the contested citations after that nom ended, but mostly I'm just interested in seeing how this pans out with someone else reviewing the sourcing this time... isento (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Support, per my past support. DMT biscuit (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I was going to contribute a review of some sort but after seeing why the article failed last time, I have no inclination to do so. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments from 👨x🐱
More comments soon. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A fascinating record that I'd love to see promoted to FA. I read the previous nomination discussion, and I understand it got pretty contentious over certain things about sources (and at another point a topic that wasn't even related to the album), so I'm not intending to step on anyone's feet. However, two major issues are already present to my eyes.
 * The first paragraph of the background section is an overly-long paragraph of the artist's early life that establishes nothing relevant in relation to the rest of the content about the album. This is also a CONTENTFORK issue as all of this stuff is not only in the bio article of the artist, but also in the background section of the article about his previous album (which I think works better there). I feel starting the background at the time he was signed to Interscope and released his first album would do it.
 * I feel the "Music and lyrics" subsection isn't the best written. I think it's pretty good but it can feel like an indiscriminate list of critical opinions with no connection to each other at points.


 * Yeah, all right. I can see how the background section could use some trimming. I'll work on that. And I might see how parts of the other section feel that way, but you gotta name some examples so we're on the same page about it. Looking forward to your comments! isento (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've trimmed the background section, but I've kept the notes on the Soulquarians, Glasper, jazz-voice training, etc. There are connections to these topics later on in the article. isento (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Got anything more to add, buddy? isento (talk) 03:19, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * More comments coming, but there's one thing. Add a page number(s) to Reyes source and replace url with link that actually directs to the page the article start. 👨x🐱 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks man. I've added the link and page numbers. isento (talk) 01:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey,, just checking in with you, because of that note below. isento (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
Well past the three week mark and little sign of a consensus to promote developing. If this hits the four week mark without garnering considerable further interest I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * No need to be afraid. I'll just renominate. isento (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)