Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)/archive5


 * 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 archived by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017.

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)

 * Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the second studio album by Romanian singer Alexandra Stan. This is already the fifth (!!) nomination of this article, and I fully believe it should be promoted. There has been a lot work that was put into this, and I thik it is now ready for a better status than GA. I would greatly appreciate comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As much as I would like to see this article pass, I find it strange that you nominate this article without any activity for months. Can you explain what steps you have done to improve this article from its last failed nomination? Can you also explain why you have decided not to edit the article in about two months and then renominate it for FAC? I look forward to your answers as it may be brought up by others who may find it puzzling since your only explanation is that it should be promoted. Thanks – jona  ✉ 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there, There was actually a lot going on with this article. First, I have requested a copy-edit. Then, I have worked in detail to the article with, which also led to a check on each source. As the previous nomination (and most of the other) left me with nearly no comments and were closed due to inactivity, I decided to give this another try. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47
Thank you for addressing my comments, and I am looking forward to your reviews. I support this for promotion. Good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Paparazzzi
My comments have been addressed, so I'm going to support this nomination. If you don't mind, could you take a look at my FAC? If you are not able to do it, don't worry, I understand. Congratulations for your great work! Regards, Paparazzzi (talk) 15:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment from Sportsguy17
The only two things I noticed were so minor that I just took care of them myself. With that, I support this nomination. A very well-written and well-organized article, good work!  Sports guy17  ( T •  C ) 03:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Edwininlondon
I'm not a music expert, never heard of this album or artist, so just a few comments on prose. There's little to argue about, fine work:
 * Commercially, -> Not sure this is the right word. Is this ranking all about money?
 * Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Unlocked itself debuted -> this seems a bit odd, almost an afterthought. But isn't this the topic of the article instead of all these singles? I would expect a more prominent position, and definitely more detailed info.
 * Originally, the article included a nearly week-by-week overview of the album and its sales in Japan. However, that was suggested to be removed as it was way too much info for just one charting country. I think the info that we have now suffices. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * both the album and its content -> a puzzling choice of words
 * Removed. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's all really. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your comments and your time. I responded to your comments. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:38, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: Although we have three supports so far, I'd be happier if some reviewers could look more closely at 1a, 1b and 1c so that we can see if the article meets those criteria. I wonder if or  are able to have a look? Sarastro1 (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for thinking of me, but I'm afraid I'm a little stretched for time at the moment and so can't make any promises. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder if or  are available to take a look? Sarastro1 (talk) 22:08, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from John

 * Which dialect of English is the article in? I see examples of both major spelling conventions at the moment. John (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi there! The article should be written in British English, I think. Btw can we do a copy-edit to fix these issues? Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not according to this early version, which has "colorful" and "practicing", which are American English. Per MOS:RETAIN we should leave it in this dialect. --John (talk) 15:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


 * But neon light is red and the image looks green. What's going on? --John (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What's your suggestion here? I think it's odd to say "purple−pink background"; what should we do instead? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What do you think of: "...and shows Stan green–toned, wearing a multicolored jacket in front of a pink–purple background." ? Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please answer! Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I must have missed your first ping. Yes, that looks better. Do you accept my point above about WP:ENGVAR? --John (talk) 19:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries! I have changed the "neon" thing and yes, I fully accept your point. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Another question; I see 18 references to iTunes; doesn't this source fall into WP:QUESTIONABLE? Are there other less promotional sources we could use? --John (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any other source where I can get release dates for so many countries. Is iTunes that bad? I have seen it in other FACs. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: While is working, I wonder if  could take a look at this as well? I think between us, we should get this wrapped up fairly soon. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Will look tomorrow morning.  HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  21:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Harry
Oppose at this time, purely on prose. I might pick up on a few things not related to prose, but prose is primarily what I'm looking at. — HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  08:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't review a lot of music articles, but from a quick glance at a few album FAs, it seems usual to include the genre in the opening sentence.
 * Even just the lead paragraph is choppy. It's essentially one fact per sentence with nothing linking them to make it flow.
 * She also developed material What's that also trying to say? In addition to what? And while we're on that phrase, what sort of material?
 * Album or record? Be consistent. Sure, mix it up a bit when you need to avoid repetition, but at the moment you have second studio album, several producers on the record, developed material for the album, to distribute the record, The album's music (also, what else would you get on an album?), critics gave the album. And that's just in the first paragraph.
 * which had led her to take a short hiatus in 2013 "had" is often unnecessary and this one just makes the sentence confusing; putting the date at the end confuses the reader and makes them go back to the beginning to recall the album's release date.
 * Do you need to mention the altercation with the manager so prominently? If it's a crucial detail you need to explain why; if it's not, you're putting too much emphasis on it.
 * Why are we discussing its performance in Japan first?
 * for her second album ... The record's release I'll let you off for the inconsistency here, but it's not clear what you're referring to
 * I see the chopiness continues into the background section. I have other things I need to do on-wiki and off so I'm afraid that's as far as I'm going for now. I may revisit to review the rest of the article or look at other criteria if there are improvements to the prose. For now my advice would be to think of an encyclopaedia article as telling a story, rather than just listing facts.
 * Are these thing we can get fixed before failing this alltogether for the 5th time? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's up to the coordinators. There's probably a few hours' work there. It's not insurmountable, but it's more work than an FAC is supposed to need. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I hope you don't get me wrong, but we could work on the article together — if you have time... Maybe we can change the "oppose" into a "support" with some work. The article is 80% ready (as it made its way to 4 previous FACs), but it just needs links between sentences and some other clarification. That should not be that hard to do... Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As we have quite a bit of support, we can leave this open longer if both the nominator and feel that the issues can be addressed relatively quickly. Sarastro1 (talk) 14:48, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your response. As I said, the main issues pointed out by HJ Mitchell are the sentences being "choppy". I will take a look later and edit the article. HJ Mitchell also needs further clarification on some parts, but those are things that can be done in a few days. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:40, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest bringing in an editor experienced in writing contemporary music FAs. You are making some progress, though you've introduced a couple of new problems (the position of "as a result" suggests she left the label because of her hiatus, and "however" is generally frowned upon at FAC). You need to read it as a whole, not just a word or a sentence at a time, and look at how it flows as a story. Which is hard to do with your own work, hence my recommendation to bring someone else in. I've looked at a handful of album FAs more or less at random (including Californication (album), The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, and just for something from the same decade as Unlocked, 4 (Beyoncé album)) and I notice several things: they all seem (based on the opening paragraph and a skim of the body) better written than this article, there are very few FAs on 2010s albums, they all cite more heavyweight sources, and they're all at least twice the word count of this article. I don't know how big these problems are, or even if they are problems, because I don't know enough about music or writing music articles. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * could take a look on the article. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Harry and John. The article is still in two minds with regards to whether it wants to be in AmEng and BrEng, for example:


 * 1) The use of American commas: although I only see one of these
 * 2) Compare with the use of British date formatting, for example
 * 1) The use of American commas: although I only see one of these
 * 2) Compare with the use of British date formatting, for example
 * 1) Compare with the use of British date formatting, for example

The prose is not up to scratch and the refs are questionable, including their formatting. I would suggest a closure here and a copy edit elsewhere.  Cassianto Talk   22:04, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Looking at these two opposes, and given that not much work seems to be taking place on these issues, I'm now minded to archive this. But I'd just like to clarify from, which are the questionable references and which are those with questionable formatting? I'd also appreciate if you could give an example of where the prose needs work. Thanks. Sarastro1 (talk) 10:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Cas, but if I put this side-by-side with 4 (Beyoncé album) (partly because I love Beyoncé yes, mock me for my taste in music!, but mostly because it's a relatively recent album that's not so well-known or enough of a classic that there are reams of text written about it like there are with the other examples I mentioned above), there's certainly a difference. 4 looks like it's built on highbrow news sources and specialist music press (MTV, Billboard, Rolling Stone, etc); both use roughly the same sorts of sources for the chart positions. Unlocked looks like it's built on sources that look more like tabloids or celebrity gossip websites (I don't read Romanian, so if these are highly reputable newspapers I apologise, but headlines like "An international bombe is to explode! Alexandra Stan went to Hollywood! The artist is planning a fancy comeback" [sic] don't fill me with confidence) and then on iTunes listings and similar sources. Obviously there's a language gap, and obviously anything Beyoncé does is going to attract more attention than most singers, which is why I recommended bringing in somebody with experience of writing pop music FAs to tell us whether these are showstoppers or not. HJ Mitchell  &#124; Penny for your thoughts?  11:48, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Closing comment: I'm not seeing much progress on this at the moment, and given the two opposes and the concerns of John, I will be archiving this shortly. Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Sarastro1 (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.