Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Ecstatic/archive1


 * 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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2016.

The Ecstatic

 * Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This article is about a 2009 album by American rapper Mos Def. It was his first album after changing labels and was viewed by journalists as a creative comeback, after two poorly received albums and his greater devotion to acting roles. It was titled after the Victor LaValle novel, whose titled Mos Def felt evoked his singular, unprecedented creative vision for the album. The Ecstatic has been noted for having an internationalist quality, sampling a range of global styles while including references to global politics and Islam in Mos Def's eccentric, conscious raps. It performed modestly sales-wise, but was a widespread critical success and named one of 2009's best albums by several publications. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * support - great article - one that can be held up as an example for all others.Timtempleton (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

This article looks clean and organized to me, I suggest for it to be featured. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Support This is a well-written article. Good candidate for FA. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Review by Jonesey95
Reviewing criterion by criterion:


 * Well-written: Yes. Prose looks good to this veteran copy editor. I may have missed a tiny thing here or there.
 * Comprehensive: Yes. All normal aspects of album articles are present.
 * Well-researched: Yes. Sources are abundant in all sections.
 * Neutral: Yes. No evidence of POV.
 * Stable: Yes. One primary editor improving the article over the last few months, no significant reverts or talk page drama.
 * Lead: Yes. Well done.
 * Appropriate structure: Yes. All normal aspects of album articles are present.
 * Consistent citations: Not quite (98% done) Yes. Find some way to deal with the date errors using the harvid template and some creative renaming of the "Anon n.d." sources, possibly using the titles of the articles.
 * Media: Yes. Licensing appears to be in order. Number and size of images is appropriate.
 * Length: Yes. Appropriate for the subject.

Summary: Very well done. Find a way to deal with the date errors in the Anon citations, and this should pass easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed, thanks to  Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I Support this FA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus
Fair bit o' images here, so... The infobox file has an ALT text but I wonder how old that fellow is. The other files need ALT text as well, per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * File:The Ecstatic.jpg: Nonfree album cover, as these usually are. Has a default non-free use rationale with all the details, which seems to fit. Inclined to say that each WP:NFCC item is satisfied.
 * File:Mosdef (300dpi).jpg: Free file on Commons, it seems like using it to illustrate the creator in the section for the background of the album's creation makes contextual sense. Comes from Flickr, plausible EXIF, file elsewhere on the web at lower resolution. Caption refers to the Commons description, yes?
 * File:Auditorium - Mos Def.ogg: Non-free song sample. Fair use rationale seems to check out all the points, including WP:NFCC but the context the article provides for the sample is a bit thin - if the sample was removed, would a reader lose much of the understanding? Caption is sourced, I'll leave it to others to assess its significance.
 * File:Moorish Science Temple 1928 Convention.jpg: Free file on Commons, it was used as the back cover and thus its use in the section on the packaging is pertinent. Caption is sourced in the article. The PD-US-no notice tag requires publication - do we have proof of it? I agree the "No notice" bit is met unless the notice was cropped out.
 * File:Preservation in Budapest 2007 - 01.jpg: Free file on Commons, is in a section where Preservation is extensively discussed so I'd say it's pertinent. File is from Flickr, plausible EXIF which points to the Flickr account. No indication whatsoever of any impropriety by the Flickr account.
 * I've added ALT text to the other images. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Source review - all OK

 * section Personnel - source? (Probably best to add a small intro sentence to include the source(s), similar to "Track listing" )
 * Other than that, thorough and consistent referencing - OK.
 * No dead links - OK.
 * No DAB links - OK.
 * The citation style (for example: using shortened footnotes for single-use references, labelling 10+ references as "Anon", specifying only the year of publication when a full date is available) looks a bit odd and overly complicated in my opinion. However, this style is used consistently and provides all necessary information. Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:CITEVAR my personal taste is irrelevant here ;) ==> reference structure is OK.
 * Information is based on reliable sources for the topic (acknowledged websites, magazines, newspapers) - OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment
 * A quick comment about File:Auditorium - Mos Def.ogg. I agree with Jo-Jo Eumerus, that the written context between file and article is a bit thin. But assuming the sample is a representative example of the album's general style, it significantly helps the reader's understanding of this album and is within common WP:NFCC practice. Usage should be OK. GermanJoe (talk) 10:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Cool, and I've added a citation to the personnel section Dan56 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * All OK now - status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe this article has now met a consensus to be promoted and would like to ask if he can determine the same and formally close the nomination. Dan56 (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Retrohead

 * The Ecstatic charted at number nine on the Billboard 200 and eventually sold 168,000 copies–These are first week sales or total US sales?
 * "Eventually", so it would be referring to the latest sales figure. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Eventually" means "in the end" per Google, and I thought it was by the end of the week (from reading the lead only). Can you modify it like this: "Released on June 9, 2009, The Ecstatic debuted at number nine on the Billboard 200 selling 39,000 copies, and moved 168,000 copies by March 2014."
 * But there's nothing about the end of any week in the lead, and that flows/reads less smoothly than what's currently in the lead. According to Merriam, "eventually" means "at some later time" or "in the end". Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * And can you replace eventually with "by March 2014", so that we know when the latest sales figure was registered?
 * It's a tad bit much detail for my taste, with no neat way of writing it, while begging the question of when the charting took place and creating the impression the lead is jumping back and forth chronologically. Just keep it simple and concisely written. I don't see the problem with how it is now. Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Can we replace deejay with DJ (or disc jockey) and link it?
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * For The Ecstatic, Oh No reused some of his productions from his 2007 album Dr. No's Oxperiment–This sounds somehow illogical to me. Writing and recording occurs before production, therefore you can't use old production for songs that were recorded afterward.
 * You're referring to the process (of making recorded music); the sentence is referring to the recorded music (eg. "a production"). Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * He sang elsewhere on the album–I assume elsewhere are the sing-song vamps? If that's the case, why not write "He often broke into sing-song vamps during his raps"?
 * They aren't necessarily just "sing-song vamps", as the source cited adds: "...the frequent times when he drops into quasi-aimless sing-song vamping-- or straight-up attempted singing". Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless, "elsewhere" means "some other place", and has unclear meaning. Be more precise in what you mean by "elsewhere"–singing over the guitar solos, having multilayered vocals, etc. (just throwing guesses).
 * I disagree. Read the previous sentence; songs/moments on the album are being listed, so the context is established and clear enough: on other songs (throughout the album). Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Billboard factored the T-shirts as album units–You mean Billboard counted one sold T-shirt as an album? Is that even possible?
 * Stranger things have happened. I also cited a source lol. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I seriously doubt this. May I have a link to the actual page on Google books? I can not enter the page cited, but you can provide a preview.
 * Doesn't the link I provided work? This is the relevant text: "...offer a physical product that contains the code for a free download of your album. Mos Def was so successful with the T-shirt release of The Ecstatic that Billboard magazine even began counting it as a music release on their charts. Prince did the same with an inclusion of his 20Ten in the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper." Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ok now, the previous link you gave me only showed the book's cover and information about the content and the author.
 * Did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * No Ian, that would be all.--Retrohead (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

-- Laser brain  (talk)  01:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.