Talk:Alicia (album)

Sections

Isento Marketing and Sales is not standard practise. Assume good faith instead of using words like "dogmatic". The majority of articles have a separate commercial performance and marketing/promotion section. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I did assume good faith. That is why I said "please." Your changes can be done in good faith yet be wrongheaded too. isento (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Your explanation suits the definition of "dogmatic." "The majority of articles have ..." Can you really quantify that? Does it even matter? Why do they? I think I have an idea (Wikipedia:Other stuff exists). isento (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please argue on the merits of the content in this article. isento (talk) 11:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Please consider the average reader, our audience, etc. "Commercial performance" sounds like a complex technical term, and the Google results reflect that. "Sales" is simpler, gets the point across better with a layperson (WP:AUDIENCE). isento (talk) 11:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I've seen this too many times, where these headings are slavishly used without much reason against a better alternative. isento (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

... and as I explained in the edit summary, the first-week sales were reported by Billboard to have been bolstered by the concert-tour ticket sale, which connects it to the marketing of the album. isento (talk) 11:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I based it off other Featured Articles and Good Articles hence the "many other articles" point. Dogmatic suggests you were expecting me to quote a specific hard figure such as "80% of articles", which you know would be impossible to quote. I went off my knowledge and experience of what's easily understood from editing wikipedia for over 12 years and 48,000 edits - something we both have. I also used my experience of writing in plain English e.g. concerts are more promotion than marketing. I found your comment "please consider the average reader" a bit patronising - always consider user experience and navigation in all my edits. Having said that, in the grand scheme of things, this debate really isn't worth pursuing as there are plenty of other pressing and blatant violations of guidance and policies on other articles. The changes being debated here are minimal in impact and certainly not going to annoy me or make me feel aggrieved, its just two differences of opinion on ultimately trying to do the same thing - make the article clear and easy to read for others. I won't be reverting back or changing again - don't think its worth disagreeing over. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 11:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel ya. But I still feel this particular trend of headings you advocated is more accessible to editors (or users) than readers, if only for the simple fact they've been used long enough to feel familiar for us. And I don't mean to patronize again, but promotion is an element of marketing, as it's defined online. isento (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Alicia (album)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 06:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

I will review this not only because it's the oldest albums GAN, but also due to your amazing work with me on GAs in the past! --K. Peake 06:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox and lead

• Use hlist instead for genres per Template:Infobox album
  • Hlist is used already. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Isento Sorry this was a typo; I meant use bullet points instead of hlist per the template. --K. Peake 06:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure soul is sourced as a genre for the album, as it is only mentioned that different tracks are sub-genres of soul and there are soul melodies?
  • Altogether, Alicia is described by The Line of Best Fit writer Udit Mahalingam as a collection of "orchestral pop, acoustic soul, and jittery contemporary R&B". isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove Swizz Beatz from producers because he only contributed to songwriting; the track listing itself shows this
  • Done. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Target "Show Me Love" to Show Me Love (Alicia Keys and Miguel song)
  • Done. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Remove stylization in brackets per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 59#Why do we note all-caps stylisation?
  • Done. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Keys' earliest work," → "Keys' earlier work," since the term "earliest" implies it goes back to her first releases
  • Further discussion of the music in Critical reception supports that implication. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Are you sure the suggested wording isn't better though, as the musical style section is more detailed on this subject? --K. Peake 06:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is not sourced anywhere in the body that the ideas are shared in her memoir, plus identify the memoir by its full title like you have in the body
  • In Pareles' observations, the singer advocates equanimity "but it's often tinged with ambivalence", reflecting "misgivings, recriminations and regrets" shared in her memoir. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The album was originally scheduled" → "Alicia was originally scheduled" since "the album" was used most recently at the end of the previous para
  • Done. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Target singles to Single (music)
  • Done. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "from Alicia prior to its release," → "from the album prior to release,"
  • Done. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "In its first week, the album debuted at number four on the American" → "In the first week of release, it debuted at number four on the US"
  • I kept "album" to avoid ambiguity with the preceding subjects, the singles. And "American" since that is the proper demonym and the acronym is used later on. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Can you change to the title instead because "the album" has been written most recently here? --K. Peake 06:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• "eighth top-10 release" → "eighth top-10 album" since it is fine to use the term in this context because "album" will not have been written earlier in this sentence
  • I used "record", less repetitive. isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "It was also a" → "Alicia was also a"
• "applauding her nuanced vocal performances" → "applauding Key's nuanced vocal performances" because you haven't mentioned her in this para
  • Mentioned in the previous sentence ("Keys' eighth top-10...")
• "were postponed due to" → "were rescheduled due to" for avoiding repetitive wording with the body

** I revised the body's "postponed" with "rescheduled". This sentence already has a form of "scheduled". isento (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• That is fine, as the only problem originally was repetitive wording with the body here. --K. Peake 06:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• • Revised. isento (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Changes per the rest. isento (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Recording and production

• Shouldn't the img have a full-stop at the end, especially since it already includes a comma?
  • No. Still a sentence fragment (MOS:CAPTION) isento (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "including New York's" → "including the city's" to make it clear you are referencing NYC and not NY state
  • I made it "NYC" to avoid repetition ("city", "Jungle City"). Three-letter abbreviations for cities appear to be acceptable (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Abbreviations/Archive_2) isento (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Merge the two paras they are under four sentences each, plus it is fine to have a one paragraph starting section when the others are all more than one
  • Done. isento (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Keys also wrote her memoir," → "Keys wrote her memoir" because the "also" part is made clear from the usage of "while" in this context
  • Done. isento (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "She says that" → "She said that" since this is an interview being quoted on a magazine's website
  • Done. isento (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Musical style

• "of Keys' previous album," → "of Keys' previous studio album"
  • Extraneous wording, no other type of album released before this one, so no distinction necessary isento (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The comma still needs to be removed since this is not in the lead. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Target ballads to Sentimental ballad
• Target R&B to Contemporary R&B
• "The dynamics of the music throughout is largely downtempo and subtle," → "The music throughout has largely downtempo and subtle dynamics,"
• You can keep as "Keys describes" since the song says she has described it as that
• Target "Show Me Love" to Show Me Love (Alicia Keys and Miguel song)
• Wikilink funk
• Target "Time Machine" to Time Machine (Alicia Keys song)
• Target folk to Folk music
• Target soul to Soul music
• Target Caribbean music to List of Caribbean music genres, but [7] only mentions "island vibes"; how do you know that means Caribbean music?
  • "Island music" is an informal way of referring to that. isento (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Oh right I never had awareness of that before, thanks for letting me know! --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Target "Underdog" to Underdog (Alicia Keys song)
• Shouldn't the second style listed for "Gramercy Park" be with the other while using "and" as a connective, since [3] is only used to back up the country genre and two refs next to each other isn't violating WP:REPCITE?
  • A different citation is used for the country reference, and if we merged them with "and", the reader may assume the country portion is also "folk-influenced". isento (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "of the album's middle tracks substitute piano" → "of Alicia's middle tracks substitute Key's signature piano" since that is worthy of a mention
  • I've mentioned it's distinctive at an earlier point in the section. isento (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Change to "Key's piano" then so we know it is the same type of piano being referenced. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink acoustic guitar
• "is described by" → "was described by"
  • This is commentary in the manner of WP:FICTENSE (as was discussed at our earlier GAN) isento (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• That guideline was valid for the other album because it is unreleased, but how does this release classify as fiction? --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• • • The quality of being unreleased was not relevant to the guideline. The music exists in the abstract, not as a real event that is being chronicled. So tense is generally irrelevant for commentary. isento (talk) 16:29, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Wikilink orchestral pop
• "says it is" → "said it is"
• "says the album" → "wrote that the former" to specify which album is being referred to
  • Changes for the rest. isento (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Lyrics and themes

• Target sociopolitical to Political sociology
• "between the narrator's view" → "between the singer's view"
• "Keys says the album" → "Keys said the album"
• "writing it encouraged greater introspection." → "creating it encouraged greater introspection:"
  • Since this is placed in the context of a section on lyrics, "writing" sounds more apt. isento (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "side", she explains." → "side", she explained."
• Where is it mentioned that she shares the reflected parts in her memoir?
  • "In her book, Keys describes herself as an artist whose determination to make her own way has meant overcoming her instinct to please others. 'I am strong and fierce and brave, no doubt,' she wrote. 'Yet I'm also someone who has found myself on the bathroom floor, boohooing and feeling vulnerable.' ... as she does in her book, she also grapples with other people's expectations ...", with musical examples interspersed throughout Pareles' article. isento (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Img looks good!
• "The album opens with" → "Alicia opens with"
• Remove "peace of mind" part since that is rewording the "free mind" bit that is already mentioned with "free thought" in the sentence
  • It's meant to rephrase the source's "solace". isento (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "to "young teachers," → "to "young teachers","
• Target essential work to Key worker
• "and the like working an" → "and other people simply trying to get through an"
• "Among the album's love songs," → "Among Alicia's love songs," especially since this is the start of a new para
• "feature a narrator trying" → "feature her trying"
  • Changes for the rest. isento (talk) 02:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Marketing and sales

• Wikilink lead single
• Remove target on "Show Me Love"
• "and its accompanying music video" → "and an accompanying music video" with the wikilink
• [15] offers no mention of her performing the song at the festival
• "Pedro Capo and Farruko" → "Pedro Capo, and Farruko"
• Add release year of "Calma"
• "On November 20," → "On November 20, 2019"
• "as the album's next single." → "as the second single." with the target
  • Adding ordinal-number descriptions to each single borders on treating the reader as if they can't figure themselves the order from the dates and order of appearance in the text. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• That makes sense here, but mention the next single as being the third since it is in a different para. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink lead single on the img text
• "to her social media accounts." → "to her Instagram account." because the source only mentions that form of social media
• "as May 15." → "as May 15, 2020."
  • The last date to mention the year is from 2020, establishing that the following dates are in that year too. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Yes but like I said before, that was mentioned multiple sentences ago and should have another mention at this point. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove target on "Underdog"
• "released as a single" → "released as the third single" but the release date is not sourced
• "also featured in a TV ad for Amazon Music" → "was also featured in a TV ad for Amazon Music,"
  • "feature" can work as a verb here, which avoids repeating "was" in this very sentence. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Maybe change to "did feature" or something similar then? --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink BBC Radio 1 and Live Lounge separately, as they both have their own articles, plus don't italicise this part
• "released as a single" → "released as the fourth single" but the release date is not sourced
• You can keep the wording the same for the next single since it's straight after the above, but [17] should only be in the later position since there's no other refs invoked in-between the two now-separate usages... but the release date is not sourced here either
• "were performed on" → "were performed for" since you can't perform "on" the BRIT Awards, strictly speaking
• "Tiny Desk concerts, alongside" → "Tiny Desk Concerts, alongside performing"
• The release dates are not mentioned by [17] again, but this should be solely at the end of the sentence because it is the only ref there
• "made appearances on" → "made appearances at"
• Remove wikilink on iHeartRadio Music Festival
• "as well as headlined" → "as well as headlining"
• "release on September 18." → "release on September 18, 2020."
• "from September 21 to 24" → "from September 21 to 24,"
  • Commas only needed after a full date (with year). isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is needed here to properly separate the performances. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• "it became her eighth album to" → "the album became her eighth release to"
  • Makes it more ambiguous, as "release" can be an album, EP, or single. There's no ambiguity as to what "it" is. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The term "it" was used most recently, so change the first part at least but maybe edit the later to "the record" or something similar? --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• "the top 40," → "the top 40 of the UK Albums Chart," with the wikilink
  • It is clear that reference is to the country's albums chart. A full reference to the chart by name is not pertinent to an understanding of the key idea here. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• You should mention the chart by name, as readers who don't look at the table further down might not know what it is called otherwise. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Remove the Billboard Hot 100 drop per WP:CHARTTRAJ
  • That guideline exempts cases where there is "sufficient reason" to mention a figure. I would argue that a 100+ position drop is significant and uncommon, particularly for a high-profile artist who debuts with this very album in the chart's top-five. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Changes per the rest. isento (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Critical reception

• The aggregate website is not notable, as most already know what Metacritic is and you can guess easily anyway
• Review date should not be mentioned since not only is it only done for one review, but September 2020 was when the album experienced its release
• "had made the subject matter" → "made the subject matter"
• Remove wikilink on coping
  • Given the themes discussed in Keys' quotes and the theme commentary in general, I think this is a case of "particularly relevant to the context in the article" (MOS:OL) isento (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• "declared it" → "declared the album"
• "of her first album," → "of her debut album"
• "singing on the album." → "singing on Alicia." since that is the start of a new para and you mentioned another album most recently
• "singled out her performances" → "singled out Keys' performances"
  • Changes to the rest. isento (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Track listing

• Wikilink Alicia Keys
  • Done. isento (talk) 03:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Personnel and credits

• Replace sub-sections with sub-headings
  • Aren't these already sub-headings in the manner recommended at WP:PERSONNEL? ({{{1}}} isento (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• The examples listed there under, "To create these sub-headings, use the equal sign (=) followed by the text for different types of performers or technical personnel." show sub-headings created by using the bold format, so I'm not sure; not three equals signs are mentioned either. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• I think the examples are rendered in bold format there to avoid creating subheadings in the table of contents for the advice page as a whole. I think given the numerous credits in this article, a subheading makes a visually bolder distinction, at least in desktop view. isento (talk) 17:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Target Nashville to Nashville, Tennessee
• Target North Hollywood to North Hollywood, Los Angeles
• Shouldn't the technical personnel be in order, as it is ordered poorly currently?
  • Only Sean C, a stage name, appeared out of order. Alicia Keys is ordered first in the booklet ([1]). And Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Personnel says "It's generally preferable to list the album's personnel in the same order that they are listed on the album packaging". isento (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Changes per the rest. isento (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Charts

• Good

Release history

• Format → Format(s)
• The third, fourth and fifth releases are not backed up as being various; there is only one Apple Music retailer cited for them
  • I've made various to worldwide. I assume online retailers offer digital downloads irrespective of country. isento (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• No that should not be done because we cannot imply the album was released in every single country worldwide, plus your second comment is incorrect; sometimes releases will be on retailers in certain countries but not others, so add more citations to the refs here. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

References

• Copyvio score looks really good at 21.3; ignore the URL flagged at over 90% since that is not cited anywhere in this article!
• Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  • I don't see this as essential -- even if a link were to rot at some point, WP:GA? notes that "Dead links are considered verifiable only if the link is not a bare url." And although I would like to add archive.today snapshots for all my GA's at some point, I really don't have the wherewithal right now :/ isento (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• It is considered common policy to do this on Wiki and helps make things properly accessible, but isn't 100% required. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• 1035 The BEAT → 1035 The Beat on ref 4, citing as publisher instead
  • Websites that publish original content in the manner of a periodical, i.e. at regular intervals, are italicized. Also, I discovered a guideline recently that would support a stop to misusing the publisher parameter in that manner: "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Titles#cite_note-2) isento (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Fix the unnecessary capitalization since the website is not stylized like that on its own Wiki even. --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Cite ABC News Radio as publisher instead for refs 5 and 31
  • Same deal, website's title. isento (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
• Fix MOS:CAPS issues with refs 9, 11, 12, 33, 37, 50, 51, 52, 78 and 79
• WP:OVERLINK of Rap-Up on ref 13
• Target Essence to Essence (magazine) on ref 14
• Give refs 15, 25 and 32 proper titles, plus change www.iheart.com to iHeartRadio and cite as publisher instead while only wikilinking for the first
• Wikilink Rolling Stone on ref 16
• Add Rolling Stone as the website for ref 17
• Fix MOS:QWQ issues with ref 20
• Wikilink News Break on ref 23 per MOS:LINK2SECT
• Give ref 24 a proper titles, plus change www.bbc.com to BBC and cite as publisher instead
• Cite CNN as publisher instead for ref 26 with the wikilink
• BET.com → BET on ref 27, citing as publisher instead with the wikilink
• NPR.org → NPR on ref 28, citing as publisher instead with the wikilink
• Cite CBS Boston as the publisher for ref 30 and target to WBZ-TV
• CBS.com → CBS on ref 34, citing as publisher instead with the wikilink
• Cite AP NEWS as publisher instead for ref 35 and target to Associated Press
• Cite Entertainment.ie as publisher instead for ref 36
• WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on ref 38
• Cite FYIMusicNews as publisher instead for ref 40 and remove the author
• WP:OVERLINK of Rolling Stone on ref 47
• Wikilink Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique on ref 60
• Ref 74 is a duplicate of ref 38
• WP:OVERLINK of Apple Music on ref 76 and fix MOS:CAPS issues
  • Changes per the rest. isento (talk) 04:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

External links

• Good

Final comments and verdict

•  On hold until everything is fixed, but you definitely have made good usage of your writing skills here! --K. Peake 12:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you. I appreciate it. isento (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• Isento Thank you for responding the day after the review and I have gone over everything by now after starting with the infobox and lead! --K. Peake 06:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes per the rest. isento (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Isento This looks a lot better, but I still have my doubts about calling the first release worldwide since only one source says that and it isn't sourced for all the release formats, plus do you really think the album could have been released in every single country? --K. Peake 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Well "worldwide" means throughout the world, not necessarily every single country. But I've removed the region row, to avoid this complication. isento (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Isento It would have been preferable with the column, but this is not a requirement and the article is broad enough without it. ✓ Pass! --K. Peake 20:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Marketing addition

@Samsonite Man:, as I said at your talk page, I reverted a large part of your recent edit to the article, because the German program video you cited was posted by an uploader that didn't appear to be the original program, making the source unfit per WP:RSPYT, while the Japanese program doesn't have an article, which suggests to me a lack of notability. The section lists many media events to market the album, so readers get the point without needing to pile on more with sourcing/notability issues. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, we shouldn't list every single effort Keys made to promote the album simply because we can at the expense of source reliability and inherent notability, not to mention readability. No one wants to be inundated with listings of media appearances and dates with no other context given, I think. Also, keep in mind that this is a featured article, so higher standards apply (WP:FACR), hopefully. Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Samsonite Man:, please stop edit warring and discuss your changes here. Much of your changes are not improving the article's sourcing, focus or readability. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed the parenthetical note that the concert special was "staged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic", when the pandemic is the main subtext of the section. You also added the descriptor "concert special" when readers can already tell it was a concert from the name iHeart Living Room Concert for America.

You added a superfluous mention of Keys announcing her next single on a talk show, when the single isn't released until several days after, begging the question why is this important to mention to readers?

You removed Keys' remarks about the single and its connection to the contemporaneous issue of police brutality, when the music's connection to such concerns is a prominent theme in the article and would only serve to offer readers insight into her thinking here. Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:21, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've seen repeated removal of sourced promo appearances made by Keys in support of the album. Threats of me getting blocked is not a very consrtuctive way forward. It may not me be who's getting blocked! There's nothing controversial or problematic about my edits. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I've explained clearly, properly and repeatedly, with citations to relevant guidelines, why I removed certain material you added. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed this material claiming it has nothing to do with the album's marketing, when in fact the use of music from this album in other media is promotional in nature. Furthermore, it relates to the themes of humanitarianism and the pandemic that are at the heart of this section, as well as in the section on lyrics and themes, the general socio-political spirit, caring about other people, etc... Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You removed the detail about "Lift Every Voice and Sing" being known as the Black national anthem, claiming it's irrelevant, when in fact she sung it for a reason (current events, again) and the source(s) cited mentioned that detail for good reason. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

You left grammatical errors (eg. "albums single") and stiffened/bungled the flow in at least one paragraph ("Further promotional appearances ... on September 24. She performed at ...", which adds an extraneous sentence structure with more promotional appearances after the previous sentence had already introduced the few listed items as "promotional appearances"; this was previously condensed together, and rightfully so.) And again, as I clearly explained above, you added poorly sourced media appearances of dubious notability: the German program heute-journal is attributed to a YouTube video for which the uploader is not even the original program (which would fail a source-check, per WP:RSPYT), while the Japanese show Sukkiri (for which it appears your draft for an article on the show was declined) is sourced to a press release from Sony. @Kyle Peake:, what say you about all of this? Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

I do fully side with you on this one, believing that the sourcing in parts is unreliable and there are issues with notability. Also, you are correct about the prose having grammatical errors as well as reading awkwardly. --K. Peake 06:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. @K. Peake Stop nit-picking and over-analyzing. Keys' promotional appearances in non English-speaking tv shows can be and will be added in the marketing section (the heading should be changed to Promotion). There are multiple sources for the Heute-Journal interview, as there is for her Sukkiri appearance. I find strange to say the least that there is a mention of a non-notable firm, who was hired to design marketing materials for the album, yet my edits of Keys's tv appearances were removed. The fact that "Lift every voice and sing" is called the black national anthem, has nothing to to with promotion of the album. Also irrelevant is a mention that iHeart Living Room Concert for America was staged in response to COVID-19 pandemic. Press releases and twitter posts announcing single releases from the album should be discussed in respective single articles.

There are multiple issues with the article, the least of which are my grammatical errors. I'm surprised it qualifies as a good article. It seems to be written in "praise", not in prose. In many parts the sources have been over-analyzed or misinterpreted. Writers of the article seem to think that Keys released her album to end racism and cure covid! There are irrelevant details, incorrect information and clumsy writing in the article.

Heute-Journal

• https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/heute-joursnal/alicia-keys-musik-in-corona-zeiten-100.html
• https://www.facebook.com/ZDFkultur/videos/heute-journal-alicia-keys-eine-frau-mit-einer-unfassbaren-stimme/3986271858052286/?extid=SEO----

Sukkiri

• https://twitter.com/ntv_sukkiri/status/1318386897140412418?lang=fi

Taylor Swift's appearance on Sukkiri has been included in Lover album article, yet here the show has been deemed not notable. Keys herself has appeared in it twice!

Samsonite Man (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

That's an alarmingly owner-ist attitude to have, that your changes "will be added", despite at least three editors objecting to them so far.

A marketing firm being hired to put up promotional art around a major city isn't another monotonous listing of program name plus date. So your comparison isn't apt. In fact, much of your remarks aren't appreciated. Keys has said herself the music has taken on new meaning in light of current events: "Fast forward to now, with where we are now, and it’s almost like the song was written for this and I didn’t know it."

Don't be naïve now, pal. Entertainers (and people all around, really) often, for lack of a better word, take advantage of current events, monetize them, etc. As Nietzche said, "exploitation is the essence of life. ... Without the Will to Power exploiting the sentimental weaknesses of equality among people, society cannot develop." Anyway, the connections in the article are clearly there, whatever the intention, and Keys touches on it herself in what's quoted of her, even if she does so unconsciously, subtlety or elusively enough to avoid shame or scrutiny. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Anyway, thank you for at least one of the new sources, ZDF appearing to be the most appropriate of them. However, I don't see where it says in the source that Keys was interviewed for the program. The translated text in the source reads: "The corona crisis is also hitting the music market. Alicia Keys' fans have to wait for the next public concerts, and the musician has also postponed the release of her album. A review of her promo tour at the end of February in Berlin." Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand that the ZDF link text is a description of the interview, but the video isn't available on the player. The interview is however available in other sources. I suppose putting up posters is promotion, but the name of the firm who was hired to do the job is irrelevant. What Keys has said about the album has no relevance for the present discussion. It seems that you've written most of the article, so I'm not surprised that "much of my remarks aren't appreciated"... And I'm accused of having a owner-ist attitude. The fact is that that article still needs a lot of work. Samsonite Man (talk) 16:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

There's no mention of an interview in the source.

Putting up posters seems like one of the most basic of promotional tactics.

I suppose your opinion could be fact. But the fact is you're gonna need to do a lot better convincing than this to get your changes restored (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS). Maybe me and the other editors are simply not intelligent enough to see what you see and need more persuasion. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:52, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. The source is the interview. I'm glad that we can agree that putting up posters is promotion. It has not been shown that my edits on the article are contrary Wikipedia guidelines and principles. Since you've written most of the article, I can understand that you don't want other editors to contribute or offer constructive criticism. I kindly suggest you stop over-analyzing and nitpicking other contributions to the article and refrain from starting edit wars. Despite our disagreements, I can say that you've done an excellent job on the article. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest you assume good faith. You would not want to be accused yourself of forcing fancruft at the expense of objectivity because your edit history and username are wholly dedicated to articles related to Alicia Keys....

The source does not mention any interview, any transcription of an interview, anything suggesting an interview. The source simply does not verify what you want to use it to say (WP:V, WP:STICKTOSOURCE). Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. The pot calling the kettle black! Please, use common sense and stop nitpicking. Yes, my user name refers to track 14 on Keys's album The Diary of Alicia Keys, and all I do is edit and write Alicia Keys related articles and I'm proud of it! Samsonite Man (talk) 17:41, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I am balancing common sense with encyclopedic sense, so that this article remains FA quality, Mr. Kettle.

Your attempted pings are not getting through btw, nor are they necessary, since I have this article and its talk page on my watchlist, me being the pot that I am ... Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Re: August 28th edits by Samsonite Man

@Samsonite Man:, I've reverted your edits to the article today for the following reasons. MOS:PARAGRAPH and MOS:ALBUM both encourage merging short paragraphs into larger sections; short paragraphs generally don't warrant their own sections. The paragraph you moved in particular directly relates to marketing, which is defined as the action of promoting and selling a product, and the paragraph also ties a marketing tactic (about the tour) to the sales performance, which would justify its placement in the marketing section, specifically the subsection on marketing after the release is announced and executed. Regarding your removal of the further reading link, WP:FURTHER READING identifies "historically important publications", which The Harvard Crimson is, as appropriate sources to be linked in such a section. The link was addressed in the featured article review, and I will reiterate the justification here: the review offers "additional and more detailed overage of the subject" (per the guideline on further reading sections). Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. Commercial performance (chart positions and sales) are typically included in a separate paragraph in album articles. This article is no exception. The article now reads that Keys did a concert on UK television after the album fell off the Billboard charts, which is both incorrect and nonsensical. The external link article to a student newspaper reiterates what has been said in many reviews and other articles about the album, and therefore does not offer any "additional and more detailed overage of the subject". Samsonite Man (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing at MOS:ALBUM about necessitating such a section for the sake of convention, and the fact of this formatting existing in other articles is a line of argument that is discouraged in content discussions (WP:WHATABOUTX).

How is it incorrect and nonsensical? The charting happened in September/October, while the concert you're referring to was in December.

Please stop restoring your revision. Merely posting comments here does not fulfill the essence of the BRD process. Piotr Jr. (talk) 16:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. It is incorrect and nonsensical because the UK television concert has nothing to do with the album falling off the Billboard charts. Keys did a lot promo appearances in September-October 2020, most of which are mentioned in the article. It has already been pointed out by another editor on this talk page that "marketing and sales" is not standard practice and that albums have a separate commercial performance section. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The concert is mentioned in a different paragraph, and introduced as among the promotional efforts done since the original chart run. Different paragraphs deal with different topics. That is basic grammar. ([2])

I have cited several guidelines in support of keeping my layout, none of which have been responded to by you. The editor you are referring to dropped this subject as inconsequential, if you read the thread thoroughly, and I have made it clear the fact of other articles as being inconsequential to this article, per one of those guidelines. If you are not going to address any of the guidelines I've cited as a basis for my arguments, as was advised to you by @Scott Burley:, then you seriously need to let this go. I put a lot of thought and effort into this article, including repeating for you the relevant guidelines supporting my decisions, and seeing your incessant reverts and off-hand dismissals of any of my reasonings here is unsettling. This has to stop. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. I've read the guidelines and they do not support your arguments. Commercial performance and promotion are two different things and should have separate paragraphs. Let's stick to standard practice. Samsonite Man (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

No. "Marketing" is defined as "the action or business of promoting and selling products or services". You are incorrect. Let's stick to accurate grammar and meanings behind words. [User:Piotr Jr.|Piotr Jr.]] (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments: The popularity of such a practice is not a valid rationale for implementing the practice here. You need a better argument to support it here, and all you've offered it seems is your misapprehension of the meaning of the word "marketing". Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What is this now with your claim that the recording period is wrong? The recording section supports this year range, even with the circa symbol offered to qualify that this is an educated estimate. This was settled on at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alicia (album)/archive1#Support from KyleJoan. I've referred you to the FA review often before. Maybe do your homework first? Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. Your definition of marketing is irrelevant. As I've stated before, albums have a separate commercial performance section, see for example Donda. A number of songs on Alicia were recorded for Here, so the 2017-2919 recording period is incorrect. See this article: https://www.revolt.tv/2021/2/25/22300793/alicia-keys-engineer-ann-mincieli-interview The sources do not define a specific recording period for the album. It's just an erroneous assumption. Samsonite Man (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

LOL MY definition? It's the universe's definition xD The meaning of words is irrelevant? Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations on finding a reliable and useful source! How about we incorporate it into the article so readers know it's not just our "erroneous assumption"? Piotr Jr. (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. You've added another erroneous recording period not supported by the source.Samsonite Man (talk) 14:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? Piotr Jr. (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Re: September 16 edit war by Samsonite Man

@Samsonite Man:, this is not a trivial item nor a detailed listing of chart positions. It's a very brief summary of the chart run, and the fact that it lasted only three weeks is crucial to understanding the extent of its performance, common sense would dictate. I don't know, maybe I'm so burnt out by your edit warring up and down this article that I have no sense left. But you've gotta stop compulsively undoing shit. My original edit summary undoing you was more detailed than this item. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. / Isento. You are exhibiting all characteristics of ownerlist behaviour laid out in WP:OWNBEHAVIOR.

1. An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article frequently. The editor might claim, whether openly or implicitly, the right to review any changes before they can be added to the article.
2. An editor reverts justified article changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect a certain version, stable or not.
3. An editor reverts a change simply because the editor finds it "unnecessary" without claiming that the change is detrimental. This has the effect of assigning priority, between two equivalent versions, to an owner's version.
4. An editor reverts a good-faith change without providing an edit summary that refers to relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, previous reviews and discussions, reliable sources, or specific grammar or prose problems introduced by the edit. Repeating such no-reason reversions after being asked for a rationale is a strong indicator of ownership behavior.
5. An editor comments on other editors' talk pages with the purpose of discouraging them from making additional contributions. The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the article altogether. At the other extreme, the owner may patronize other editors, claiming that their ideas are interesting while also claiming that they lack the deep understanding of the subject necessary to edit the article.

You have reverted every edit me and other editors have made to the article for the past three months or so. You continually wage edit wars. You have left numerous threats to me here as well as on my talk page, and you have reported me to administrators for editing the article. Your behavior is both baffling and embarrassing. If you are so consumed by policing the article and overseeing every edit, why don't you just stop and leave? Samsonite Man (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@ARoseWolf:, care to comment? Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for pinging me. ANI is where the discussion about the edit warring and disruptive editing is occurring. I will make comments concerning the case there. The article talk page is for content discussion of which I have none at this time but I encourage you both to continue discussing content with civility. --ARoseWolf

"Comment on content, not on the contributor: Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." (WP:READFIRST). Piotr Jr. (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Samsonite Man continued ...

@Samsonite Man:

• "Some songs on the album were recorded before Here." - The sentence qualifies the following with "primarily", so we are not referring to some songs, but most of them. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Recording period not supported by source. Removing footnote as per MOS:INFOBOX" - The recording period is supported, and the recording period is qualified with circa, with the earliest known date of a recording being 2015... And there's nothing at MOS:INFOBOX barring footnotes from the infobox. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• unexplained - she is primarily a piano/keyboard player alongside vocals, and the removal of the chart fall-off remains unjustified from the earlier thread. Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Unencyclopedic fluff" - not found to be fluff at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Alicia_(album)/archive1#Support from 100cellsman... Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• "quote not needed" - Why not?? It kind of illuminates with further detail the previous statement... Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

• unexplained - restoring previously challenged changes is disruptive. Get consensus if you can't dissuade my arguments above... Piotr Jr. (talk) 20:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr.

• "Alicia is the seventh studio album by American singer-songwriter and pianist Alicia Keys". -> Removing "pianist" per MOS:LEADSENTENCE (Keys is a singer and songwriter first and foremost, piano her instrument)
  • Dozens of sources, including AllMusic's bio, define her as a singer/songwriter and pianist. Nothing at MOS:LEADSENTENCE supports removing pianist. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Removing recording period and footnote per WP:STICKTOSOURCE "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what the sources express" and MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content."

Summarizing calculations and deductions based on supported data/figures is not original research (WP:SUMMARYISNOTOR). The footnote doesn't supplant anything; it doesn't present new information unfounded elsewhere in the article. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• "However, it fell off the US chart a few weeks later." -> Removing per MOS:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on—though not by teasing the reader or hinting at what follows. It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. As in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources.-> The fact that the album fell off the US charts not a key point warranting a mention in the lead.

Wow. You seemed to have needed guideline-text 10 times the size of the text you are trying to remove to attempt to justify its removal. Already a bad sign... WP:IGNORE: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Fact is, omitting this fall-off creates the illusion to readers that the album was greater success than it really was, since we lead off with the chart-opening and say no more. Which brings me to another point, WP:AUDIENCE: "Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country..." Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Removing song lyrics per WP:NOTDATABASE "Most song lyrics published after 1925 are protected by copyright; any quotation of them must be kept to a minimum", WP:CV and WP:FANCRUFT-> Including almost half of the songs lyrics in the article is not only fancruft but boarders on a copyright violation.

They're nowhere close to almost half. And both WP:QUOTATION and WP:LYRIC support their inclusion, as I originally defended to @100cellsman: at the FAC, which you seem to have never reviewed yourself, yet freely sling around poorly-formed judgements here... Piotr Jr. Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Removing quote from Ann Mincieli per WP:QUOTEFARM The article in many parts is essentially a quote farm, and clean-up is needed.
  • I don't see anywhere at WP:QUOTEFARM where it says that this article is essentially a quote farm... Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

And finally reverting per WP:OWNBEHAVIOR "Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about—perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it" "...editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars...". Samsonite Man (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Come off your hyperbolizing and hypocrisy, man... (WP:KETTLE) Piotr Jr. (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. I've reverted your edit based on WP:OWNBEHAVIOR and WP:BRD "BRD is not mandatory. BRD fails if: there is a dispute on the page, by editors with entrenched positions, and you are reigniting a debate that has achieved stalemate without consensus and a single editor is reverting changes and exhibiting other forms of ownership attitudes." Samsonite Man (talk) 17:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Piotr Jr. WP:HARASS "The purpose [of harassment] is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing".--> As a target of your harassment over the course of the last three or four months or so, I'm considering taking your unacceptable behavior to the administrators!Samsonite Man (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Samsonite, I would gladly accept a notification for intervention to an administrator. In fact, I have tried quite a few times... but I won't accept your bad-faith suggestions and accusations. Quite frankly, they are pathetic and desperate attempts to avoid confronting the substance of the content dispute, instead resorting to a character dispute. Piotr Jr. (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2021 (UTC)