The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by SL93 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
... that the COVID-19 pandemic caused Lucifer on the Sofa to become Spoon's most time-consuming album to record? Source: Rolling Stone - "Spoon, whose members are scattered across Austin, Brooklyn, and Los Angeles, have been forced to sit on a nearly complete album for six months and counting — and they have no idea when they’ll be able to gather in person to finish it. “This is definitely the longest we’ve ever spent on a record,” Daniel says."
ALT1: ... that although it was released today, Spoon originally expected that their tenth album, Lucifer on the Sofa, would be released in the fall of 2020? Source: Rolling Stone - "By early March, they thought they had a shot at finishing the album in time to release it this fall; when the shutdown began, they hoped they could reconvene later in the spring and stick to that schedule. But as the pandemic raged on, those hopes fell apart, as did a later plan to finish the album over the summer."
ALT2: ... that while recording their tenth album, Lucifer on the Sofa, Spoon wanted to replicate their sound as a live band in studio form? Source: Pitchfork - "Extensive touring behind that album made the band realize they preferred the live versions of those tracks to the recorded ones. ... The quintet enlisted producers Mark Rankin, Justin Raisen, and Dave Fridmann, and aimed to capture the excitement of a band playing together in a room rather than strategically piecing songs together.
Comment: Special occasion request for February 11, the album's release day.
Converted from a redirect by Aria1561 (talk). Self-nominated at 02:02, 21 January 2022 (UTC).
I shall review this. (Please note I am liable to be interrupted today, so you may see several saves of a half-finished review. Please be patient.) Storye book (talk)
Overall: Thank you for a nice article about a new album. Hooks are repeated in the article, and citations bear out there. I have one hesitation - the final paragraph contains several announcements of forthcoming sales promotions for the album. I am aware that past promotions for records and albums are OK in articles, because those promotions have ended. However, announcements of forthcoming promotions are a different case. I would like a second opinion on this. BlueMoonset? theleekycauldron? When that issue is resolved, I believe this nom should be good to go. ETA I do not agree that the nomination should be published on the album's release date 11 February, because that would count as advertising/promotion. Please see the bolded section of BlueMoonset's comment below: the final paragraph needs to be re-written so that it is not promotional (advertising not allowed), and so that it does not predict definite dates (future predictions can change).Storye book (talk) 11:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes I agree with that point, Theleekycauldron. What is your opinion on the promotions (if that's what they are?) in the final paragraph? I would like to suggest removing those promotions which have not yet ended, and putting each one back later, when they have ended? I do accept that that that type of album promotion will be an important part of the group's history - but not right now.Storye book (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Ohhhh, sorry, I understand the question now. It looks like everything in that paragraph is cited to primary sources, specifically, record labels; obviously those will have an interest in promoting however the heck they've chosen to release the song, but I'm not sure it constitutes WP:DUE weight. if there's anything, well, important and basic that can only be found in those sources, that's fine, but I think a paragraph like this needs secondary sourcing to signal its importance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess I should be the sorry one, because I don't think I've made myself clear. The final paragraph almost entirely consists of information about what special sales deals will be on offer (e.g. special colour vinyl disc, bonus flexi-disc and signed poster, alongside the named retail outlets which will sell them on the release date. It doesn't matter what the sources are - it is saying that special stuff will be on sale on a certain date from certain outlets. As for the nature of the sources - I don't personally object to them per se, but they are not used elsewhere in the article for legitimate information, so WP would not lose anything if we were to ask the creator to remove that paragraph on the grounds that it contained only promotional material. (I'm not a deleter by nature, and I believe that the para could go back in the article when all the release-date sales are finished, since the fancy coloured records will ultimately form part of the history of the band).Storye book (talk) 13:13, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Another problem with the final paragraph is that it violates WP:CRYSTAL: while the album may be scheduled for release on February 11, the future is uncertain and Wikipedia's voice should not be used to say it will be released on that day. As Storye book notes, the release detail is excessive as to who is offering what. I think it needs to be stripped down to scheduled release date and formats (digital, CD, vinyl), with perhaps a mention that the vinyl will be in a number of colors and designs, but nothing specifying who is offering what. I have been wondering about the hooks: ALT1 is clearly ineligible because of the promotional issue surrounding the special occasion request, the original hook doesn't strike me as particularly remarkable—the pandemic has made many things take much longer than usual. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, BlueMoonset. I shall adjust my review comment accordingly. Storye book (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Aria1561: Please see the above review, which I have kept updated. I have had to strike hooks ALT 0 and 1 because ALT0 is nothing new in this pandemic, and because ALT1 is related to the release date, and we are not allowed to publish it as a promotion. That leaves ALT2 which is OK. The only remaining issue is that we are not allowed to have the promotional material in the article's last paragraph (please see BlueMoonset's comment above, especially the bits which I have bolded). Please could you re-write that last para as BlueMoonset requests? Thank you.Storye book (talk) 17:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: I have made the requested changes for the last paragraph. Also, as far as date requests for album release days go, 1) I had a previous DYK nomination w/ a special occasion request for an album release day be accepted (in fact an exception was made for it as it was nominated more than six weeks in advance of the SO date (my mistake)), and 2) I'm not seeing anything in Wikipedia:Did you know#Date requests that would forbid a SO request for an album release day. What I'm seeing is that the hook cannot place emphasis on the album's release, which ALT2 is not doing. A hook that does not mention the album's release being shown on the Main Page during the release day is not at all a form of advertisement. If there is no clear regulation regarding this kind of SO request then I fail to see why this request would be not accepted. If there is one, I would appreciate it being shared so I can know for future DYK nominations. Aria1561 (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Aria1561 for correcting the issues relating to the final paragraph. It looks fine, I believe, now. As for the matter of the special occasion request - I was following the advice of theleekycauldron, because I am not experienced in that area. Please could we have your opinion on the special occasion request for the album release date BlueMoonset? See theleekycauldron's above comment of 11.42, 24 January. Storye book (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: Pinging again as the album's release date is now a week away. Aria1561 (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
To clarify: this nom has passed DYK. All we are waiting for is a decision as to whether the requested special occasion slot of 11 February (= album's release date) is permissible in relation to WP rules on promotion and advertising. If that slot is not permissible, then this nom is now good to go for any date. BlueMoonset?Storye book (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no opinion on the article or the hook wording, but based on my interpretation of the Date requests link above, it appears that simply having a hook mentioning a product that runs on a requested date does not make the hook non-neutral (i.e. promotional). In addition, this part may be relevant: Listing a hook that mentions a product or company on the Main Page during the requested date does not, by itself, make the hook promotional of that product or company. Based on this I'm leaning towards the date request not being promotional given that it's simply a hook about the subject and does not even mention that it is being released on that day but rather the hook just happens to run on that date. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Sorry, I guess I'm being extra dull-witted today, but I'm not sure what you want us to do. Please could you kindly tell me, do you think we should ask for the requested date, or not? Storye book (talk) 11:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Ack, I made a typo with my original comment. I meant to say that the hook was not promotional. Meaning I think the special occasion request is acceptable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Narutolovehinata5. Good to go with ALT2 and requested special occasion date 11 February (there was a discussion about the special occasion date; that is now resolved). Storye book (talk) 17:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I moved it to the special occasion area. SL93 (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for a nice article about a new album. Hooks are repeated in the article, and citations bear out there. 
To clarify: this nom has passed DYK. All we are waiting for is a decision as to whether the requested special occasion slot of 11 February (= album's release date) is permissible in relation to WP rules on promotion and advertising. If that slot is not permissible, then this nom is now good to go for any date. BlueMoonset?Storye book (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)