Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/This Year's Model/archive2

This Year's Model

 * Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. I withdrew the first nomination as I felt it needed a little more work before it deserved the star. I have now spent a good amount of making new additions, including acknowledging the first nom's comments, that I now believe it's ready to go. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging past commentators, , , and  – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tkbrett
Major oversight that I didn't provide comments on the last go-around. I'm posting this here as a placeholder so I don't weasel out of it.  Tkbrett  (✉) 16:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey tk just a reminder :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder, ! I've been making fixes while reading, but I've only found minor stuff so far. The prose of the Writing and recording section is especially fantastic. Is there any reason the December 1977 – January 1978 date range is tucked into a note? In the body, it similarly goes through all the trouble of saying "beginning towards the end of 1977 and completing in early 1978", only to tuck those dates into the note again. Why?  Tkbrett  (✉) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Now that you mention it it definitely makes less sense than it did when I did it. Fixed that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

A few more comments:


 * The article uses noted, noticed and pointed out a few times, which ought to be avoided by MOS:SAID.
 * Oops. Adjusted. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I fixed two others.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ...Costello based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks... Do you know which tracks? It seems that when other songs directly influenced Costello, the article makes clear which ones.
 * Lucky for you I was able to clarify which ones! – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The songs themselves are primarily led by the Attractions, with Nieve's keyboards taking centre stage on many tracks, compared to My Aim Is True and Costello's next album Armed Forces (1979). I'm not sure which part the comparison is between. Does it mean the other albums are led more by Costello than the backing band? Or does it mean the other albums don't feature keyboards as heavily?
 * This sentence caused issues with another reviewer so I went ahead and removed the whole thing, so we'll keep the first para solely about the genre. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Once my other two points are addressed I'm happy to support this article.  Tkbrett  (✉) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * All set :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are my only points of criticism. A superb article for a superb album.  Tkbrett  (✉) 15:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * now that everything is resolved, I'm happy to offer my support for FA status.  Tkbrett  (✉) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from magiciandude
Regarding Spanish Model only:
 * Ref 130, use the parameter "url-access=subscription" as the original article is behind a paywall.
 * Done


 * If you have any room in this section, I'd suggest an image of a Latin artist.
 * I wanted to but the problem here (on web at least) is MOS:SANDWICHING with the infobox that I don't know how to resolve, unless we added an image to track listing, which would then look weird on mobile... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Zmbro That's fine. I now support as my final issues have been resolved. Erick (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

That's all I got. Erick (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp
First half of article:
 * My biggest comment is this. I'm not just writing this because I'm North American. But I'm a little uncomfortable with how the British version seems to be presented as the definitive version, and the American release as a footnote, even though for a whole continent of people, the American version was the reality. I'm sure it's valid to present the British version as Costello's artistic vision. But maybe the wording can be adjusted in a few places to be less potentially confusing for somebody who may be holding an American copy in their hands and might think, for example, "What's this about 'Radio, Radio' was not on the album?" ("The band recorded several other tracks in addition to the final track-listing, including 'Radio Radio'" <--This sentence is in "Writing and recording" but the reader has to go all the way down to "Release and promotion" to find out that "in America ... Columbia substituted "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea" and "Night Rally" with "Radio Radio".) Similarly, the phrase "The closing track, 'Night Rally'" in the "Side two" section could be potentially confusing for someone holding an American copy in their hands. My ideal suggestion would be to possibly in "Side two" explicitly mention that "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea" and "Night Rally" were on the British version and maybe even add a few lines to the end of the section, giving critical commentary about "Radio Radio" (like for the other songs), mentioning there that it had been added in the the American version in place of "Chelsea" and "Night Rally". Or if you don't want to go that far, I still urge you to (1) make the distinction between the two versions clearer earlier in the main text, and (2) ideally find a way to treat the American version as less of a footnote, because as I said above, it was the reality for a whole continent of people. Moisejp (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In some ways I do get what you're saying, but overall I humbly disagree with your comment. I've simply kept things in chronological order. I don't think, and it was not my intention, to present the American LP as an afterthought (nor on Aim and Armed, where those are set up essentially the same way). Mentioning the American LP as far up as writing and recording is just silly, as when it was recorded, "Radio Radio" was just an outtake. Based on feedback from the last nomination I even made sure to include a description of what the song is actually about. Additionally, mentioning the differences between LPs in music and lyrics is also silly. I'm honestly not sure the best course of action here. I agree we could drop "the closing track" but I feel everything else is fine as is and doesn't neglect anything to the sideline. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This really is a small overarching problem I found when writing Aim, Model, and Armed; Get Happy forward cut all the removing tracks business. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I revoke my original comment after some thought. The main problem is just presenting everything chronologically, which I've tried my best to do (following other FAs Hunky Dory and Low). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm sympathetic that it may be tricky to balance chronology with addressing my concerns. I won't press this point any further. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * This is a minor comment. (I also mentioned a variation of this comment in my review of your first FAC, but that FAC was closed before you had a chance to respond to it, from what I remember.) I'm not trying to stoke the British vs. (North) American fires two comments in a row, and please feel free to ignore this comment as appropriate. The article is written in British English, as it should be, and that's great. For me as a North American (I can't be 100% sure I'm speaking on behalf of all North Americans, though), the word "American" as an adjective or a noun referring to people, clearly means "of the United States". But the word "America" as a noun is unclear and feels imprecise. Does it mean the United States, North America, the Americas? There are at least a few mentions of "in America" or "tour of America" in the article. But maybe in British English it's perfectly acceptable and clear. In Britain, does it always mean only the United States? (Did any of his mentioned tours of America possibly include Canadian dates? Maybe not, but for the sake of preciseness it'd be good to double-check if you haven't already.) Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can verify this – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, "in America" always means in the US. Ceoil (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree with this entirely - an "American tour" might well sneak over the border into Canada (just like a American on an "English tour" might well play Glasgow, or even Belfast or Dublin). The only thing you can be sure of is that an "American" person is believed to come from the US (you know, like Neil Young). Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * "Designed by Barney Bubbles, the initial sleeves were off-centre and exposed a printer colour bar on the right, which was corrected for later releases." / "The original UK cover artwork for This Year's Model was deliberately off-centre,[45] making the title appear as His Year's Model and the artist "Lvis Costello" ... Riviera's soon-to-be-formed F-Beat Records first released the British album with a corrected sleeve in May 1980." If Bubbles did this design deliberately then "corrected" doesn't seem quite right,
 * How about "properly aligned?" – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Wanting only himself on guitar,[6] the first person hired was Pete Thomas". Seems like a dangling modifier since it was Costello who wanted only himself on guitar, but the passive subject is "first person hired".
 * Agree. Adjusted


 * In the "Background" section, Stiff is mentioned a couple of times before Stiff Records is wiki-linked.
 * Oops fixed


 * Minor comment but it feels like the section between "He remained focused and the album was completed without difficulty" and "Everyone was really excited because they were the stars of the moment" could be tightened even a bit. It feels like the same kinds of ideas are repeated in different ways multiple times: the sessions were productive and energetic; everyone was excited about Costello's and the band's success. Or if you don't trim anything, maybe find ways to subtly acknowledge that a given idea has already been mentioned ("As mentioned above" is not very subtle but maybe something less direct along the same lines). Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that look better? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head but in "For "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea", Costello originally based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks, which the band used to create new figures that made the track stand out on its own" the phrase "stand on its own" doesn't quite feel precise to me. I don't know, if you disagree or if you sort of agree but can't think of anything better, no worries.
 * Reworded a tiny bit but not too much – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "Costello did not contribute due to his still relatively little experience in the studio". Is this meant to imply that he wanted to contribute to the mixing but held back, or that it's normal for artists to contribute to mixing but Costello was an exception, or perhaps that for later albums Costello contributed but didn't for this one? It's not clear.
 * Clarified that he took charge starting with Armed – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "The songs themselves are primarily led by the Attractions, with Nieve's keyboards taking centre stage on many tracks, often outshining Costello's guitar": "outshining" sounds likely subjective. I guess likely this is the opinion of Trooper, Mendelsohn, and Klinger. I don't know if you might want to make it clearer in the text that this was certain people's opinion (even if it's just a blanket attribution like "some critics") or possibly substitute a more objective word for "outshining".
 * How about we just remove the guitar bit? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * About "You Belong to Me": "Lyrically, it is a plea for sexual freedom and as such, is full of resentment and anger". Maybe this could be made clearer. Is the narrator's girlfriend viewed as possessive ("You belong to me" are the girlfriend's words?), while the narrator wants sexual freedom (not a monogamous relationship), and that's what he feels anger about? From the title alone, one might assume the narrator is pleading to the girlfriend that she belongs to him, in which case it wouldn't be clear why he'd be angry about a lack of sexual freedom.


 * "Lip Service": "Gouldstone writes that the track is essentially a declaration of independence on a female companion and the world at large." I'm not sure that "on" ("on a female companion") is clear here. For a second I was going to suggest "towards" but I'm not sure that's a big improvement either. Possibly this sentence could be rewritten to make it clearer. As it is, I think I know what it means but am not 100% confident. Moisejp (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Changed to Perone's opinion for variety; his is also clearer. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * "a different shot was also used for the Swedish release": I think this means the Swedish cover photo was different from not only the British but also the American one. Just making sure that's right?
 * Yessir, changed different to third to make it clearer


 * "including Bruce Thomas cutting his hand smashing a glass bottle ... Bruce Thomas wore bandages on his hand after injuring it while juggling a beer bottle while backstage at a show in Manchester". Are these presumably talking about the same incident? If not, consider making it clearer that they were different incidents. If they were the same incident consider cutting one of the mentions, or rewriting the second mention to acknowledge that the incident has already been mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes they were. I neglected to read the whole section first before I added that. It should be fine now – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Replied with what I got so far. Won't be available all weekend. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to get to get to the second half of the article very soon, and then after that I'll do a second read-through and check your changes to the first half above at that time. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Update: I've finished my first read-through and am expecting to support. I'll do another read-through this weekend to be sure no other little issues jump out at me, but overall it is looking good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Minor suggestion to put the "In lists ranking Costello's albums" paragraph in the Rankings section. Moisejp (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * That's implied to be for overall best-of lists and not limited to the artist's own work. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Later reissues are credited to Elvis Costello and the Attractions" (footnote b). Just a note that my 2002 Rhino release doesn't mention the Attractions anywhere on the cover including the CD spine. I would think that "credited" would include mention on the spine even if the original 1978 cover (without mention of the Attractions) is reproduced as is. Moisejp (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's more or less meaning streaming services and such as. Yes Armed still remains their first cover credit, but on Apple Music at least they're credited. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Minor comment that I'm not sure whether footnote f (about "Big Tears") adds much value. Also the order of the refs in footnotes h, i, j are not chronological (if that's important to you). Moisejp (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I support. The three comments above are minor and don't affect my support. One other minor-ish comment that doesn't affect my support: As I mentioned in the first nomination, I'm a big fan of this album, and I recognize much much praise has been given to it over the years. Nonetheless, I feel there could possibly be room to trim a bit of the praise in the Legacy and influence section. Some of the citations could be combined, and some of the details excised, for a representative account where the reader would still understand that album has still been heavily praised indeed, in the areas mentioned. But this is not a deal-breaker issue for me, and I leave it to you to see how much you agree. Kudos on the great article! Moisejp (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Ykraps
I've only read the lede so far but already I have reservations about the prose. Examples below. More to come (probably). --Ykraps (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Lede (paragraph 1) I don't think debuted live is the same as made their live debut and I think you probably mean the latter.
 * Fixed


 * Lede (paragraph 1) Most of the material was written prior to the sessions - Were there any songs written during the recording sessions?
 * Specified in the body here: "Other tracks written or demoed included "Crawling to the U.S.A.", "Running Out of Angels", "Green Shirt" and "Big Boys"." :-) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, seemed like an odd thing to say because I'd always imagined that all the songs were written prior to the recording session.--Ykraps (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Lede (paragraph 2) The songs on This Year's Model are primarily driven by the Attractions - in what way?
 * I removed the part in the lead and body since it was causing issues. For the above sentence how does it look now? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Lede (paragraph 2) ...with influences including works by the Rolling Stones and the Beatles - works is redundant
 * Fixed


 * Lede (paragraph 3) This Year's Model also received critical acclaim; many highlighted strong songwriting and performances - much of it highlighted
 * "critical acclaim" is not an object so changed to reviewers
 * Even better.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Lede (paragraph 3) ...while also praising Costello as an artist and the addition of the Attractions. - Praising the addition of the attractions?
 * removed addition of


 * Lede (paragraph 4) In later decades, This Year's Model has continued to receive critical acclaim - ...This Year's Model continued to receive
 * Lede (paragraph 4) ...continued to receive critical acclaim, with many praising the addition - much of it praising or with many critics praising
 * Lede (paragraph 4) In later decades, This Year's Model has continued to receive critical acclaim, with many praising the addition and performances of the Attractions...- Isn't all this just repeating the previous paragraph?
 * Regarding the above three, I've rearranged/simplified the sentence because as you said, it's essentially repeating the same info. How does it look now? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It still sounds a little repetitive with appeared on several and praised and praising so close together. What about saying, "...while also admiring Costello and his band as artists" and "It featured on year-end lists in both the UK and the US" (several seems redundant anyway, as lists indicates there was more than one)? --Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh wow I didn't even realize that until now. How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Background (paragraph 1) Not sure what 'aspiring image' means? How does an image aspire? Do you mean the image he aspired to or simply, his (Costello's) aspirations?
 * Almost forgot about this one. I've reworked it so it now reads: "For the recording of his debut album My Aim Is True (1977), Elvis Costello was backed by the California-based country rock act Clover,[6] whose more laid-back approach he felt did not fit the sound of the times. Wanting a harder and sharper ensemble to better fit his aspiring image, Costello decided to form his own permanent backing band.[7]" How does that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Background (paragraph 2) Per Costello's management contract, Costello followed Riviera and departed Stiff for Radar Records but retained his American deal with Columbia; his final release for Stiff was "Watching the Detectives" in October, which became Costello's first single to reach the top 20 in the United Kingdom. - Shouldn't that semi-colon be a full stop? Either way, this sentence would benefit from being split in two.
 * Done – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Writing and recording (paragraph 1) This Year's Model was recorded during Costello's break in his touring schedule - This sounds unnecessarily convoluted. Why not simply say, "...during a break in Costello's touring schedule"?
 * Muchhhh better. Fixed.


 * Writing and recording (paragraph 1) ...as producer, and, in Thomson's.... - I would say the comma after 'producer' is unnecessary.
 * Fixed.


 * Writing and recording (paragraph 1) Acting as a foil to Lowe was engineer Roger Béchirian... - I would also say there ought to be a comma after 'Lowe'.
 * Not sure I agree as to me it's a complete thought. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think I read that wrongly.--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Writing and recording (paragraph2) Costello based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks, which the band used to create new figures to make the track stand out on its own. - Nasty repetition of 'figures' and 'tracks'. Also, to what does 'figures' refer? Are we talking about characters within the songs?
 * Clarified which tracks these via an above comment btw. The guitar parts specifically. I've readjusted it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Writing and recording (last paragraph) ... including "Radio Radio" and "Big Tears", which featured a guest contribution from the Clash guitarist Mick Jones - This is highly ambiguous as it isn't clear whether both tracks or just the latter featured Jones. Say 'both featured' or 'the latter featuring', whichever is correct.
 * My bad, corrected.


 * Music and lyrics (paragraph 1) - More nasty repetition with 'influence' and 'reference' cropping up multiple times. There are plenty of synonyms you could use instead - impacted, prompted, shaped, acknowledged, to name a few. Or try flipping some of the sentences. Instead of saying A influenced B, say B drew inspiration from A. This sort of repetition is prevalent throughout the article and ruins the prose.
 * I have found I always struggle with that unfortunately. One sec. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Music and lyrics (paragraph 1) - amphetamine-fueled - Is this a direct written quote? otherwise it's amphetamine-fuelled (British English}.
 * It is a direct written quote yes.


 * Music and lyrics (paragraph 3) - it's a two way process - again, if this is a written quote, okay. Otherwise, it's a two-way process.
 * Fixed. Sounds was British so that helps.


 * Side 1 (paragraph 2) - The vocals are fueled by - Shouldn't this be fuelled by? (Br Eng).
 * I actually did not know that (I'm American). Fixed.


 * Side 1 (paragraph 2) - Check Denning's quote again. Does it say 'an wild or a wild?
 * Actually says "an" so it's definitely a typo. Should I put [sic]? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would treat as a typo and lose the rogue 'n'.--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done – zmbro (talk) (cont) 13:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Side 1 (paragraph 2) and Music and lyrics (paragraph 1) - Did both Erlewine and Dening use the term amphetamine-fuelled? Or is this an error?
 * The former used "amphetamine-fueled" while the latter used "adrenaline-fueled". Very close but yeah... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice that. More sloppy reading. I thought you might have mixed up the reviews. My mistake!--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Packaging and artwork (paragraph 1) ...making the title appear as His Year's Model and the artist "Lvis Costello" – From memory, the T and the E were just around the corner, on the reverse. Any information on this?
 * Unfortunately no. Looking at Discogs I can now see that for myself but to my recollection none of my sources mention that the letters transfer over. But thanks for the comment I wasn't aware of that until just now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it would need a reference, shame.--Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Packaging and artwork (paragraph 1) … first released the British album with a properly aligned sleeve in May 1980… - Not sure I like the 'properly', which somehow suggests the original cover alignment was a mistake. What about just saying realigned?
 * Done. Want me to remove other instances of "properly aligned" too? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best as currently it sounds like a printing error rather than the marketing gimic it was.--Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Release and promotion (paragraph 1) Despite attracting critical praise, the tour contributed to growing exhaustion for Costello and the Attractions. – I can't see how 'critical praise' has a bearing on whether the tour contributed to growing exhaustion or not so 'despite' seems like incorrect usage. Also, critical often means disapproving judgement so 'critical praise' sounds like an oxymoron. Why not say, "The tour, which was received positively by critics, contributed to the growing exhaustion of Costello…"?
 * Done


 * Critical reception (paragraph 1) Many deemed it superior to My Aim Is True and praised the Attractions as a much stronger band compared to Clover, while also citing strong songwriting and performances - Strong and stronger in the same sentence give it a repetitive quality. What about, "Many deemed it superior to My Aim Is True, praised the Attractions as a better band than Clover, while also citing strong songwriting and performances"?
 * Agreed. Done.

I made a few minor changes [] which I hope you're okay with. That's about it from me. Happy to support pending successful image and source review.--Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from John
In the lead the article states "Meanwhile, the cynical lyrics reference subjects from technologies of mass control to failing relationships, which some reviewers found misogynistic." This seems to relate to in the body: "In PopMatters, Marty Lipp cited the project as a full display of the Attractions' strength as a band and recognised how many of the Latin singers on the project were female, which represented a "striking reversal" of the "she done me wrong" mentality that pervaded a majority of Costello's early work.[124] However, he found that the absence of Costello's "brilliantly cynical wordplay" does the album more harm than good, particularly on "Pump It Up"." So was it cynical, or was there an absence of cynism? More comments to come. John (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Would you be able to clarify please? This sentence is referring to the absence of cynicism on the Spanish Model version of "Pump It Up", whereas the original was full of it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Who says the original was cynical? It's funny to say this in Wikipedia's voice (not attributed) in the lead, but not mention it in the body. "Cynical" is a pretty negative thing to say about a work of art unless there is very good sourcing for it. John (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Technically the one you pointed out. Since an absence of "Costello's "brilliantly cynical wordplay"" would imply that was on the original, although in terms of the actual original I didn't find one that used that word. Should I go ahead and change it to something else? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah, if it's solely based on that, I would take it out of the lead.   John (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with John here - that's a worrying mistake to be found in lead. Zmbro can you audit the rest of the article for unattributed, subjective/descriptive phrases. However, I do think the article is very good overall. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid, coming back to this after a few weeks, I don't think it is there yet.
 * "Most of the material was written prior to the sessions and made their live debuts throughout the latter half of 1977." Is the material singular or plural?
 * Fixed


 * "In 2021, Costello spearheaded a new version of the album titled Spanish Model, which featured songs from This Year's Model sung in Spanish by Latin artists over the Attractions' original backing tracks." What does "spearheaded" mean? Released? Toured?
 * I don't have time just now to read the rest of the article, but if, as I suspect, it is littered with such basic errors, I don't think we can promote it yet. John (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on your comments do you think the article is salvageable or should we just archive it? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you leave it open pls Zmbro; will have another look over the weekend. It is close to standard, but as said prose need tweaking, mostly for ott (for wiki) adjectives and music journalese. I definitely see this as being promoted at some stage if you stick with it. Ceoil (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I am fine to leave it open, but I might be deferring to you Ceoil as I've been unwell. "Costello wanted himself solely on guitar." There's quite a lot to do. John (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Ceoil
Currently on the lookout (haven't spotted too many more) but as a side question, is this sentence: "Lyrically, it is a plea for sexual freedom and as such, is full of resentment and anger." appropriate for WP voice? Specifically the "as such"? Thanks. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC) Did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC) From the last para in "Writing and recording"
 * I'm not in fovour of promotion; eg "Despite the lack of personnel information and a sleeve credit on the original release, the Attractions were acknowledged on the LP labels." is tortured. Needs a lot of work on prose and clarity, so have to oppose for now; I think its a fantastic expansion, but not quite there yet, and frankly think if it got another spin at FAC would end up all the stronger. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I adjusted that sentence you mentioned. I mean is there anything that can be done now? I'm fully committed. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Better now. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That was just an example. re: committed; so am I. Asking that the candidacy is kept open for 1 more week. Not yet happy with the bar being set for further music artices. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Vibrant" should be in quotes (I suspect)
 * Done
 * Regarding the environment; "describing the atmosphere during the recording" or...something. "regarding" is not good
 * Adjusted
 * Better "prefered" than "favoured"
 * Done
 * wherein he would not present songs to the musicians until they were fully written, the Attractions provided input that elevated the songs. - paraphrase this quote, if only to not use the phrase wherein he would , "provided input" is weak, so would paraphrase that also
 * adjusted


 *  which the band used to create new figures to make  - what are figures; could be linked.
 * Done


 * Costello's biographers also praise This Year's Model.  - of course they do. Would remove this glib statement.
 * Done


 * The author likewise commends the album for debuting one of the strongest four-piece rock bands to emerge during the era. likewise is not encyclopedic, "commends" how (on substance)
 * And so on and so forth. The whole page is like this and needs work. Ceoil (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * To note for the co-ords, many of the above are being addressed, and expect to be striking over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Duly noted... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Pinging – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Its almost there. Hold on pls. Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Coming along, leaning support, but some other comments


 * The article is top-heavy on touring schedules and dates. It makes the reading exhausting at times, and in terms of context, adds not much.
 * still an issue. Maybe the point is that he was overworked and under constant pressure, and rather than dotting this around specific tours in the cron, you could make a more general comment in "recording" or "release" Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Reading it back there's a lot of date mentions in background so you're saying to trim those down and just say something like "toured constantly from July to December"? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What about that? I feel like that retains most of it but scales back on the dates a bit. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a big improvement. Closer to telling a readable story than regurgitating fact, fact, fact. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I do agree that I've found sometimes I tend to focus on too much detail, as when reading all these sources it's hard to know when to stop (see Hunky Dory when I nominated it for instance). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I know, and did follow that FAC. It's always tempting to pad out with factoids, but better for the reader to stay on point as far as possible. This goes twice for "reception", best not to mention or quote two critics that are saying the same thing; paraphrase and mention their view via refs. I often find I build up an article, then cut it to bits to get rid of the fat, then its ready for FAC :) Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Too many quotes in general.
 * Better now. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The reception section should really be split into contemporary and retrospective (not with sub-headings). I find the guidance at WP:RECEPTION helps a lot in organising and phrasing these sections. If done proper it would make the headache inducing "Rankings" sect redundant. Remember those articles are just easy to write year-end filler for magazines/websites and entirely subjective to the hack taking part. A sentence like "numerous best of lists" in reception would mostly cover it. Would remove only the three most important publication, and merge/ consign to a mere mention, the rest with reception. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't have the user generated Discogs in the external links. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's fine to use those for just that as it's not being sourced for anything. At least that's how it was for my other album FAs. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not a great argument and have removed. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, if the nominator doesn't start engaging in the next few days, I'm not just going to fix it all, and will move to oppose. Tired and exhausted by waving aside and making excuses. Losing faith in this nom. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by this. As soon as you posted the above comments I started trimming quotes (which I agree there's a lot of). I've also literally engaged with you on almost every major thing you've said. I'll gladly continue working (as I have been) but since you clearly don't think it's ready so you might as well just oppose and if that prevents its promotion so be it. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the striking above, and for the recent copyedits. Am away for weekend, but will do final run through Sun night. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds magazine's Jon Savage called it the equivalent to a 1978 Aftermath - can you explain what in the lyrics of Aftermath drew the comparison. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Basically Aftermath is notorious for having misogynistic lyrics, i.e. "Stupid Girl", "Under My Thumb", etc. I suppose that would be important to note now that you mention it... – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep. Otherwise, the reception sec is looking good. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * How's that look? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Better, but any source mention the song titles you mention. Would help as strong claims (that I don't disagree with necessarily). Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Did Bubbles really make a mistake on centering the cover image; sounds like a sub-editor problem and even and if he did, is it worth mentioning in the lead. Seems like a curiosity more than anything, and as now stated perhaps veering into BLP territory. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Per the sources I have yes he did. And yes it is notable as the infobox image shows the original which is not what it looks like now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But is it lead worthy? I don't think so, and would file under factoid. The image is so strong and memorable, why dwell on a minor negative? Given it was for Stiff, not sure he was given time or resources (which is presumably why you keep on mentioning that Elvis was over worked and distracted by tour dates). You can't have it both ways. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * But the thing is the artwork hasn't been seen the way it's shown in the infobox for 40 years. I'm not sure what "both ways" you're referring to, but if you don't want this bit here then we should just leave that it was designed by Bubbles and nothing else (aside from the echoing songs bit). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I would go with "iconic", designed by Bubbles, and leave it at that for the lead. The off center thing is not that important, and can be left for the body. ps, as I say, will finish up by Sunday evening!, really happy with the progress in last two days. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kinda comes off as WP:PUFFERY. Also, I don't think the word "iconic" is used to describe the artwork once in the entire article. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * to restate; yes iconic was a bad choice of words and sorry, but the artwork deserves more praise than criticism, regardless of the fact that its changed slightly in the last 40 years. Your focusing on contemporary smart alek reviews, because that's what you've found, rather than a broader appreciation of the image. Don't emp a minority and irrelevant view in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * How is this one doing? I am looking to close this in the near future. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to now Support after much work. Very pleased with the nominator's responses and overall effort. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria
Images are appropriately licensed, although the article may benefit from a sample. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Source review
-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're not citing discogs, but you have it listed in the external links; it's flagged as an unreliable source.
 * Using that as an external link is fine you just can't use it as a source itself. At least that's how I have found it's treated on the majority of albums throughout WP. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think if it's unreliable we probably shouldn't link to it, but as it's not used as a source I'll strike it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Weisbard & Marks (1995) (cited for Wyman's chapter) has no publisher location.
 * Fixed
 * Be consistent about whether you cite page ranges for chapters in edited works.
 * Fixed. For Perone he has large chapters with specific pages devoted to specific albums (kind of based on the eras of the artist). So he should be fine there. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the logic behind how you're using the work/website and publishr parameters for cite web? E.g. for Deming you don't have a website parameter, just a title;  in other cases you have website/work and no publisher, e.g Deusner.  In some cases, e.g. the Swedish charts, you have both.  In some cases you're giving a URL (e.g. "www.collecionscanada.gc.ca") as the website.  Usually the website is the name of the site (e.g. "AllMusic") and the publishr is whoever the corporate entity is behind the website, which if I recall correctly is RhythmOne for AllMusic.  Often people don't bother with the publisher for the website, or at least don't bother if it's obvious (e.g. the New York Times is published by the New York Times).  It doesn't matter what the logic is so long as it's consistent.
 * For charts I've been told by other music editors that listing the publisher is the primary way to source those. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's been multiple discussions over the years regarding the italicization of AllMusic (since it really shouldn't be). There's one here. The problem is the website/work parameter always italicizes no matter what so I and other editors have agreed to just use publisher. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * OK on AllMusic. For charts, in that case shouldn't FN 118 use publisher?  And I should probably have asked first time round: what makes chartheaven.9.forumer.com a reliable source?  And FN 134 does use publisher but is not a chart. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Metacritic also uses the publisher parameter across the site. And yeah looking back at it I agree I don't really know what that is or see how it's reliable. Removed that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What makes the following reliable sources?
 * Stereogum -- I know they have some respected critics writing for them, but this is more or less a listicle, and I don't know if these authors are known as music critics. Per this they haven't contributed much.
 * I know it's been called reliable elsewhere but I know in one of my other FACs an editor questioned it so I just removed it. I'll do the same here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Acclaimed Music
 * It's an aggregate website similar to Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. I've used it for my previous FAs, as long as it's not used for citing anything specific. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a discussion on this here and here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to leave this unstruck in case other reviewers want to comment. It does appear there's a weak consensus that it's OK to use them.  I'm not sure their summarized numbers are that notable; or perhaps I should say I'm not sure there's broad enough critical recognition that Acclaimed's summaries are useful and accurate to make them worth including.  However, it does appear there's no concern about their accuracy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 19:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I really only started using them after seeing them appear on the FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album), after which I felt it gives a minor indication of just how acclaimed an album really is. Plus, for Model, being the most acclaimed album of 1978 according to the data I'd say is noteworthy, personally. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The Spotify archive link doesn't work.
 * Fixed.
 * Replies above. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've struck the points that were easy to quickly verify; I'll have to come back when I have a bit more time to look at the other two. I'm a bit busy over the next two or three days but will get back to this when I get a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Pass. All points now addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility review
The weekly charts tables are missing row scopes per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops you're right. Fixed. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The preceding | should be changed to !. Heartfox (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ope. Done, – zmbro (talk) (cont) 02:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)