Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)/archive3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song)

[edit]
Nominator(s): Earthh (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"City of Angels" is one of the most memorable and iconic songs recorded by Thirty Seconds to Mars. Since the first review in September, the article underwent a copyediting treatment (I'm not a native English speaker) and I believe that it is very close to the FA criteria. I would ask the editors who oppose to provide their reason for such and add additional comments how can I improve the article. The second nomination was closed since no one left a comment for nearly a month, I hope it won't happen again. Thank you. Earthh (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tezero

[edit]

Comments from Karanacs

[edit]

Oppose for now. I think this is a good start towards FAC, but it's not quite there.

  • The inspiration and theme paragraphs are very similar. Can the first two sections be combined?
  • Recording and inspiration is similar to a background section. Composition and theme is more specific, we first have Leto's thoughts and then critics' thoughts on the song.
  • Is it really necessary to mention the single was offered for 69 cents? This statement isn't put into any kind of context (low? high? normal? price).
  • That sentence mentions that the "song was put on sale". It's part of the promotion of the song so it suits in the release section.
  • (talk page stalker) It should probably be removed per WP:NOPRICES: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." The currently source is the band's site. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it really important to note that it was offered free from iTunes - especially since we don't know why?
  • Again, it's part of the promotion and suits in that section.
  • The paragraph with the release and peak dates in Europe IMO seems to overdo the dates. Do we need to know exactly what week for all of this, or is it sufficient to say November - January for most of it, and then note that it was later in a few countries?
  • Removed where possible. Dates are necessary for this kind of section, see examples at featured articles like this and this.
  • For the critical reception section, please make sure that every quote has a citation at the end of the sentence - even if that means that two sentences in a row have the same citation.
  • Hm... he is requiring a source after every quote, and you said it's overkill. In fact it's fine because MINREF says you should use inline citations after a direct quotation. And a nutshell is better than an essay. Am I missing something? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 20:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm using inline citations after every quote. From WP:REPCITE, "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill."--Earthh (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does any critic compare the piano version to the other version?
  • It's the same song, just a different way of performing it.
  • I'm wavering on whether or not there are too many quotes in the article. On the one hand, it's obviously a very personal song to Leto, so it's important that we have his perspective. On the other hand, I'm a little concerned that parts of it are too much Leto's perspective (or things cited to the band's webpage) and not enough 3rd-party analysis. Then, when criticism is addressed, it is almost entirely quotes from the reviewers strung together.
  • There's very little cited to the band's webpages; you should consider that Leto is the writer, producer, performer of the song and also director of its short film. Every section, in its context, has 3rd-party sources.
  • I understand that Leto is the key figure in this saga...however, the point of the article is not to give HIS perspective, but to give the perspectives of third party sources. If we rely so heavily on quotes from Leto and or paraphrases of what Leto thinks of things, then we are just regurgitating his opinion. Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mean that we should not have the author's perspective on his work? That is totally incorrect. In the article we first have Leto's thoughts on the inspiration and theme of the song, followed by analysis and interpretations by third-party sources, so we are not "just regurgitating" the author's opinion. The same thing is done in the sections related to the music video.--Earthh (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karanacs, do you have any further arguments?--Earthh (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no citation for this sentence: From the Hollywood Hills to Hollywood Boulevard, the short film captures the struggle of entertainers from the streets to the big screen.

Karanacs (talk) 22:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I think we probably have an enough of a difference of opinion here that its unlikely either will sway the other. Good luck! Karanacs (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Retrohead

[edit]

Support. I opposed the first nomination, and the article has been improved since then. Here are some minor notes:

  • Loudwire needs to be italicized in the reference templates.
  • Can you merge the second and third paragraph from the lead?
  • Credits adapted from... should be at the start of 'Credits and personnel'.
That's all from me. Good luck with the rest of the comments.--Retrohead (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Thanks for your support, Retrohead.--Earthh (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS

[edit]

Oppose for now

  • When a song is released as a promotional single and later as a single, the earliest single release date should be used in infobox (I gather from this that it is October 25, 2013)
  • Fixed.
  • The lead should mention at least some chart positions
  • A generic image of Los Angeles isn't particularly beneficial. Maybe instead include Jared Leto himself.
  • That image is very similar to a framing of the video. Should I remove it?
  • Add a comma after "filming" in "After filming Leto talked"
  • Done.
  • Six images in one spot is overkill, just use one or two pics for one spot.
  • Done.
  • For nominations lost, include who won (i.e. MTV VMA for best cinematography went to Beyoncé's "Pretty Hurts")
  • Done.
  • Is "massive" in "The set's massive video screen" the most encyclopedic word choice?
  • Removed.
  • "AllAccess.com" should read "All Access"
  • Done.
  • Done.
  • PopCrush, Artistdirect, and Discogs are not reliables source per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES
  • I've removed PopCrush and Artistdirect. Discogs is the only available sources that cites promotional singles. Should I remove that reference?
  • Done.
  • Not sure if London Evening Standard, Nottingham Post, "Lowdown", "LA Music Blog", or "RumorFix" are the best sources to use
  • They appear in the reception sections (except RumorFix), there's nothing wrong with their use. RumorFix is founded by Jay McGraw, that source is simply an update on the filming of the video.
  • "Hollywood Life" and "Entertainmentwise" are also unreliable
  • Hollywood Life is a subsidiary of Movieline, owned by PMC. Entertainment Wise is owned by Giant Digital, the parent company of Gigwise. They both seem to be reliable.
  • Removed. Thanks for your clarification.
  • Very inconsistent use of publishers (or lack thereof)- either use them for all or none
  • According to {{cite web}}, the publisher parameter should not be used for magazines and newspapers.

Not a bad article, Earthh, but isn't (yet) FA-worthy. Best of luck improving the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, SNUGGUMS. Please look at my responses to your points and let me know if you have answers to my questions or any further concerns.--Earthh (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. See my above responses. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

While I can see the nominator has made the effort to address reviewer comments, we're over a month into the nomination and clearly have a way to go to achieve consensus to promote. I'll therefore be archiving this shortly and ask that further work take place outside the FAC process before a potential renomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/City_of_Angels_(Thirty_Seconds_to_Mars_song)/archive3&oldid=891687342"