Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pagtatag!/archive1

Pagtatag!

 * Nominator(s): – Relayed (t • c) 18:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"Sige lang nang sige, believe me. Nang walang pagsisisi, buhos mo'ng lahat hangga't makakaya mo." [Just move forward, believe me. So you won't regret, pour everything as much as you can.]

– "Crimzone" (2023) by SB19

This lyric, for me, is one powerful one and has inspired me to go forward even when obstacles may come our way, and here we are with another nomination.

It has been almost a year since my first FAC nomination with "Gento" (song). After working with several SB19-related lists to featured status, I think Gento's parent figure, Pagtatag!, would love to have the same recognition as "Gento". This article is about an extended play recorded by the Filipino boy band SB19, which "Gento" is a part of. It is the band's third major project since their debut, and while the remainder of its songs never really saw a similar fate to "Gento", the EP was met with positive feedback from critics.

This article was promoted to good article status last March, with concerns regarding the few details on the EP's development. I have tried adding more information that I missed to the article, and I believe the article is nearly complete with the sources I am working with.

This is my second FAC nomination, and I think this article has the potential to be considered one of Wikipedia's exemplary works. This is part of my ongoing efforts to improve SB19's coverage here on Wikipedia, and if promoted, it would probably be the first Filipino album/EP to attain this status! I would be more than happy to address criticism, feedback, and suggestions. I sincerely thank the reviewers in advance who will put their time and effort here. – Relayed (t • c) 18:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Aoba47
I have made some edits to the article (here). Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. My review so far is mostly about the lead, with some comments on other sections. My biggest concern is that the "Critical reception" section needs to be rewritten. Let me know if you have any questions. Also, more for future consideration, I would consider writing a shorter nomination statement as multiple paragraphs like this is not the norm. Aoba47 (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the lead's first two sentences can be combined to be, Pagtatag! (stylized in all uppercase; transl.  strengthening) is the second extended play (EP) by the Filipino boy band SB19, released by Sony Music Philippines on June 9, 2023.
 * Merged
 * I would reword this part, (The EP experimented with different genres), as an EP as an object cannot actually experiment.
 * Reworded
 * For this listing, (with pop, hip hop, EDM, soul, R&B, ballad, and acoustic elements), the sentence seems to be about genres. However, neither ballad and acoustic are types of music, not genres so they do not really fit in this context.
 * Reworded and removed types
 * The prose for this part still needs further work. I do not think the copy-edit really helped. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * If this EP has all these genres, why is only pop included in the infobox? If critics described the overall EP as pop, this should be clarified. Right now, there just seems to be a contradiction between the lead and the infobox.
 * Reworded lead: Critics classify three of the songs from the EP so I went for the majority; hopefully the lead has been clarified.
 * I do not think that is enough to support calling this a pop EP. I believe there needs to be a citation or citations that more explicitly refers to the EP as a whole as pop, not just citations that connects a few of the songs with the genre. It may be worth waiting to see other reviewers respond to this, but I do know that genre can be a tricky thing on Wikipedia and it is best to have citations that more explicitly support the information. Aoba47 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I would remove "with an ensemble consisting of" from the lead to just say the EP was produced by these people.
 * Removed
 * This is likely a matter of personal preference, but I would avoid using "the boy band" as a way to not repeat the group's name. I first noticed this at the start of the lead's second paragraph, and I find that it reads awkwardly. This is a good essay about it. I know others feel differently about it, but I find that it can be distracting or unhelpful.
 * Reworded lead, I'll do this in later sections soon
 * Why is this link, WYAT (Where You At) Tour, using a redirect instead of going directly to the article?
 * Relinked: Sorry, I recently moved the article to another title and forgot to change the redirects
 * I do not think this part is needed, (The EP is centered on artistic themes of "identity strengthening"), as a later sentence already goes into topics discussed on the EP in a clearer way.
 * Most sources mentions the "identity" part so I figured it should stay; however, I reworded that part a bit
 * I am not entirely sure what this part means, (and serves as the second installment in the band's ongoing music trilogy). If they are doing a trilogy of EPs, that should be made clearer as "music trilogy" is not the best wording.
 * Reworded
 * The prose for this part still needs work. Aoba47 (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "Critical reception" section would need to be rewritten. It does not support the overview provided in the lead and comes off more as a list of critics and quotes. WP:RECEPTION is a great resource to help with this.
 * I would incorporate the "Year-end lists" subsection into the overall "Critical reception" section and remove the table. Two listings are not enough to justify the table or the separate subsection.
 * Merged
 * Why not replace File:SB19 Get in The Zone Nationwide Concert in Negros 1 (cropped).jpg with an image of Pablo since he seems to the focus of the caption? That and there are already two images of group in the article so it is a bit repetitive.
 * Replaced photo
 * File:SB19 - Gento.ogg needs a stronger justification to be included here. The caption is just about the song. Audio samples for things like albums or EPs should be about how it is representative of the entire project as a whole.
 * Thanks for the recommendation, I do kind of agree that "Gento" has less justification. I might use "I Want You" and "Ilaw" as samples since the former was their first R&B song and the latter may highlight the good "imperfections" that critics were referring to; I'll upload them soon.
 * "I Want You" being their first R&B song is not a good rationale for including it in an article about the EP. Again, an audio sample should represent something about the EP as a whole, not just about an individual song. The "imperfections" one for "Ilaw" would be a better choice, and I would highlight in the caption how that particular critic described it for both "Ilaw" and "Liham". That way, the audio sample would be more representative of the EP and better suited for the article about the EP. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Aoba, for your feedback and for being here! I will address everything in the next 24 hours. And, regarding the nomination statement, I will keep that in mind for future reference. – Relayed (t • c) 17:02, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Take as much time as you need. I will do a thorough read-through of the article once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the oppose below as well as my own concerns with the prose, it may best to handle this in a peer review rather than a FAC. Apologies, but I oppose this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi, Aoba! With the overwhelming amount of issues raised, I think I agree with having this article undergo peer review instead. Thanks for taking a look at the article, I appreciate your input a lot. – Relayed (t • c) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose from PerfectSoundWhatever
Hi there! I'm new to FAC but I'll try my best. I'm mostly going to look at prose: — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * "SB19 attempted to delve into different sounds for the EP" This sentence feels a bit awkward. What is it different from? I would mention the departure from dance-pop here, or remove this entirely.
 * "tracks exploring hip hop, EDM, soul, and R&B genres" -> "tracks exploring the genres hip hop, EDM, soul, and R&B" or just remove "genres". "R&B genres" implies referring to subgenres of R&B.
 * remove link to Concert tour (MOS:OL)
 * Awkward wording: change "SB19 embarked on their first world tour with the WYAT (Where You At) Tour" to "SB19 embarked on their first world tour, WYAT (Where You At),". Perhaps this detail isn't even needed: as a reader, I would prefer "SB19 embarked on their first world tour" with a link pointing there.
 * I find "band's ongoing trilogy of music releases—following Pagsibol (2021)" poorly phrased. I would probably get rid of "music releases" because its implied, and add more to the "Pagsibol" part. An idea you may want to mess with is: "The EP is the second installment in the band's planned trilogy, of which Pagsibol (2021) is the first installment."
 * Who is ShowBT? A couple words of context should be provided.
 * "explored topics on" -> "explored topics of"
 * remove "in it"
 * "Gento" was released ahead of the EP as its lead single" -> '"Gento" was released as the EP's lead single'
 * change "deemed". music critics aren't authorities, it's all subjective.
 * What does "diversity" mean here? Sequence-wise, instrumental, cultural, genre wise? A word so vague adds little to my understanding of the subject.
 * "which has a set list consisting of each of the EP's songs" I'm not sure what this means. Each song, or each EP in the trilogy? Does the setlist have all of the EPs songs, because that isn't how it read to me.

Overall, on a first read of the lead, I'm dissatisfied with the prose. Often, unnecessary extra words are used, and it lacks clarity; meaning is sometimes difficult to discern. I would recommend reading other music FAs of artists you like to get a feel for the type of prose that is used in FAs.

In terms of specific changes, I'll go less into depth for the rest of the article, in hopes you get the general gist and can rewrite the prose to make it clear and succinct.


 * first sentence of Background is a run-on.
 * "dance-pop genre" wording is awkward.
 * "band's agency" who? is this ShowBT? this is a non-sequitur
 * "SB19 worked with several record producers" another run-on
 * "told in an interview with" grammar
 * "their upcoming release would based" -> "their upcoming release would be based"
 * "proceeded with self-management" is odd phrasing.
 * This whole passage is difficult to read: "first release to have complete control of, from its development leading up to its release, which the group was fond of"
 * "recorded their cover version" -> "recorded a cover version"
 * "also enlisting" grammar
 * "music genres the group wanted in the record" what does this mean? a verb is missing somewhere
 * "clapping sounds" -> "claps"
 * "The song talks about how success is as rigorous as excavating gold, using gold mining as a metaphor for the group's story and career" This just says the same thing twice.
 * "SB19 sings about the desire" SB19 cannot sing as it is a band.
 * "slow soul R&B production" would move these citations to the end as it interupts flow.
 * There should be a chart box per WP:ALBUMSTYLE.
 * "It marked SB19's first entry for both charts" -> "It marked SB19's first entry to both charts"
 * While not MOS, I would put the names of the awards in quotes for readability, like "Gen-Z Approved Hit"
 * "mining for gold" move refs to end
 * "To support" run-on sentence
 * Add a music ratings box too

To conclude, I have to oppose based on prose issues. The prose is unclear, grammatically inconsistent, and overly wordy. This is a non-exhaustive list, since I only pointed out what felt most pressing. I'm happy to give it another read-through at a ping. Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 04:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, PerfectSoundWhatever! Thank you for reviewing the article. For the meantime, I will act onto the issues you have raised. – Relayed (t • c) 12:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Hopefully they were helpful! Thank you — PerfectSoundWhatever  (t; c) 15:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey, and. Thank you so much for your comments. They have been extremely helpful, and I appreciate your guys' efforts. I have read the issues you guys have raised, and I am still in the process of dealing with all of them and applying them in the article.

I think what Aoba suggested may be for the best. I would like to withdraw this nomination for now and put this article up for a peer review once I have addressed the comments put up by Aoba and PSW here. Hopefully, I can open another FAC nomination by the end of the month if everything goes according to plan. – Relayed (t • c) 19:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Relayed: You pinged the FLC director and delegates, not FAC. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I am sorry about that, just noticed it after clicking Publish. Thanks for the reminder. – Relayed (t • c) 19:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I think withdrawal is a wise decision. I look forward to seeing an improved version back here, although the usual two-week hiatus will apply. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)