Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hey Y'all/archive1

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 promoted by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 6 September 2020 [1].

Hey Y'all

[edit]
Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about a 2002 country music album by American singer Elizabeth Cook and her only release on a major record label (Warner Bros.). Prior to Hey Y'all, Cook self-released a critically acclaimed debut album and performed over 100 times at The Grand Ole Opry. The album received a positive response from critics, but it was commercially unsuccessful, likely due to a label shift and a lack of airplay on country radio. In 2003, Cook voluntarily left Warner Bros. in favor of releasing independent music. Thank you in advance for any comments, and I hope this FAC encourages other editors to work on articles on more obscure music. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Damien Linnane

[edit]
  • 'A majority of the songs were written by Cook and Hardie McGehee, who shared a publisher'. - This reads odd to me. Who is Hardie McGee? Should publisher be linked to Music publisher? These things don't seem clear in the lead, and furthermore we don't really learn any morein the body either.
  • Is it really necessary to put 1955 and 1975 in brackets after "Making Believe" and "I'm Not Lisa"? It seems out of place and irrelevant, but granted I haven't worked on very many song articles (at this level anyway).
  • From my experience, a song/album's original release date is often mentioned in the prose (possibly to give the reader a greater context), but it is not particularly useful here, and I can see how it can be rather distracting from the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Cook said that she wanted to balance her "artistic integrity"' - up to you, but I don't think artistic integrity needs to be in quotes.
  • 'he had people play instruments in an "open studio"' - what's an open studio? Is there a better link?
  • I have rephrased this part to hopefully be clearer. Here is the sentence about this from the source: "Producer Richard Dodd cut most of the album in an open studio, letting the players play and the instruments blend together with a liveliness you don't hear on most major-label records." Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'She wrote "Dolly" during a shower after that meeting.' - Should this be reworded? I mean, I doubt she literally wrote it down while in the shower. Would it be more appropriate to say she composed the lyrics in the shower?
  • 'During a live performance of "Stupid Things", she introduced it by saying: "This one was allegedly a single.' - This is interesting. Can you tell us what year this happened?
  • 'in it, she is wearing a suit while sitting on a man's shoulder'. - I'm guessing the source doesn't give an indication of who the man was? It would be interesting to know, that's all.
  • It is likely a family member, but unfortunately, the source does not identify the man, and this is the only article that I could find that discusses the album's packaging. It would be nice to know though. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'The feature received pushback from a Music Row publicist who wrote: "I loved the article by what did she have to do to get on the cover of Life?"[27] A follow-up article on Cook and other people covered in that year's Life section was published on December 29, 2002.' - You've lost me here. Can you try and explain what the publicist is complaining about differently? Also is the grammar here right? I.e "article by what did"
  • 'Robert L. Doerschuk remarked that Cook's writing had prevented "contemporary distractions in order to connect directly to a more conservative aesthetic"' - 'prevented "contemporary distractions' - what do you think this means? Does the article give any indication?
  • I think that Doerschuk is praising Cook for avoid then-current trends in country music to go back to a more traditional sound. I can understand how the quote is confusing though after re-reading it. It makes sense in the larger context of the review, but it is not a good quote to pull out and present on its own.

Well done with the article. Very close to supporting. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:36, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. Happy to support. Damien Linnane (talk) 02:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from zmbro
  • I don't think I've ever seen an infobox contain a link to another part of the article. I would suggest putting the actual studios instead of "various". Plus, I'm only seeing 4 different studios stated in the body so that shouldn't make the infobox much longer
  • Throughout the body, make sure artist names that begin with "The" are not capitalized mid-sentence per MOS:THEMUSIC

Rest looks good to me. Great job on this! – zmbro (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ

[edit]

As you are a veteran in writing FAs, I should have no major concerns over prose. I do have, however, a few minor issues:

  • for the Nashville publishing company → I believe two disparate, consecutive wikilinks are discouraged. Any way to rephrase this? (like "the publishing company XX in Nashville"
  • I was told that "Due to" is almost certainly discouraged; maybe try "because of" or "thanks to"?
  • I personally don't like elevar (i.e. "of the same name"). I'd recommend reword the ballad "Ocala", in which Cook sings about the Florida city of the same name to the ballad "Ocala", in which Cook sings about the city of Ocala, Florida; the latter does not seem very clumsily worded to me. However, this is just a personal perference, and I think majority of editors are fine with "of the same name" wordings
  • The rest of the article looks great. I like the reference formats, very neat and easy to navigate.

— HĐ (talk) 03:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • As all of my concerns have been addressed, I am happy to support this for promotion. Other issues such as source spotchecks and file review should be fine, I hope. Good luck with the FAC, and have a great week. HĐ (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Quite a long time since I reviewed an FAC, so hopefully my review is in line with current standards/expectations.....

  • The first two sentences are short and could be combined
  • "It was recorded in at Javeline Studios" - there's a stray word in there
  • "Media outlets reports reported" - again, I think there's a stray word in here
  • "Hey Y'all was recorded at Javeline Studios, the Hum Depot" - in the lead you capitalised the T on The Hum Depot, but not here?
  • "Hardie McGehee,[6][9] who she worked with" => "Hardie McGehee,[6][9] with whom she worked"
  • "wrote a song with her then-fiancé Tm Carroll" - Tm is an unusual first name ;-)
  • "to whom she dedicated a song to on Hey Y'all." - another stray word in there
  • "Patterson remarked that album's instrumentals" => "Patterson remarked that the album's instrumentals"
  • "coon classic weepers" - forgive my ignorance, but what does this mean? I have literally no idea. In my country, the first word is actually an offensive slang term for a person of colour, but I guess it means something else here.......?
  • "Flowers said it had a similar sound to The Whites" - wikilink The Whites
  • "singling out Everyday Sunshine"" - opening quote mark missing on the song title
  • Thank you for the review. You have helped to improve the article a lot so I greatly appreciate it. Please let me know if there is anything else that can be improved. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Cartoon network freak

[edit]
  • was the first time its executive producer Richard Dodd worked in country music → was the first country music project which saw the involvement of its executive producer Richard Dodd
  • who shared a music publisher → who shared the same music published (that sounds better to me, but you can leave it your way too)
Whoops, there is a typing mistake going on here. I meant 'publisher'.
  • I think it can be assumed from the context of the sentence that it is the same music publisher. I think it would be somewhat redundant to say "the same publisher" when that can already be understood from the "shared" word choice. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • transferred to Warner Bros → isn't it "Warner Bros."?
  • as well as more sexual topics → as well as on...
  • who praised its traditional country → you should say "the album's" since you've talked about Dolly before
  • Despite positive reviews → you're repeating yourself, I think we don't need this bit (again)
  • had inspired the idea, and he produced all of the songs → had inspired the idea and produced all of the songs
  • like how she printed the cover herself at Kinko's → how is this a "movement is one which uses the people in a given district, region, or community as the basis for a political or economic movement"? Could you elaborate?
That is the definition of 'grassroot effort'. I don't quite understand how printing a cover by oneself matches with that definition.
  • Revised. She used the term "grassroot effort" to talk about how she did all of the work for that album including how she printed the covers herself. She was not using the phrase in a political context. Aoba47 (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mama You Wanted To Be A Singer Too → Mama You Wanted to Be a Singer Too
  • "Making Believe" → Release year in brackets afterwards
  • Hey Y'all was recorded → you could add a "subsequently" for a better flow
  • to balance her artistic integrity with its potential commercial success → to create a sound that balanced her artistic integrity with commercial appeal
  • Cook recounted this time → that time
  • is a country music album that has twelve tracks → twelve-track country album
  • several genres throughout the album → hmm. This may be confusing since the main genre is country. Maybe say the following are solely influences?
  • which Paterson described as a "twangy, sexy soprano" → with Paterson attributing her vocal range to soprano
  • "Rainbows at Midnight" is about a break-up → "...delves on a break-up" would sound fancier
  • vocals from The Carol Lee Singers → ...the
  • sound to The Whites → same as above
  • in which Cook sings about the city of Ocala, Florida → in which Cook sings about the city of the same name
  • really grew up → factually
  • a mandolin, played by Darrell Scott → no need for the comma
  • questioned if the lack of airplay → I think "whether" would sound better here
  • was an instance that the album was more pop, but noted that Cook's accent still makes everything sound like country music → was significantly leaned towards a pop sound which, however, was overshadowed by Cook's accent
  • she introduced it by saying: "This one was allegedly a single." → this is so clever ahaha
  • focus on markets that we feel we can get traditional music played → there is a word missing at the end. I know it's incorrect to say "played on", but a preposition is missing here
  • as a "slowed-down" cover → stripped-down would be fine
  • in downtown Nashville → repetition of "Nashville" in the same sentence
  • Cook did an interview → was interviewed
  • Several reviewers enjoyed its traditional → the album's
  • liked that she released → applauded
  • instead of attempting to be crossover music → to release
  • Cook initially looks like an attempt → looked
  • the album's high points → highlights
  • with "Sometimes It Takes Balls To Be a Woman", a single from her fourth studio album Balls (2007) → interesting titles, aren't they? XD
  • Although the album received positive reviews → repeating yourself, I don't think we need this bit
  • contracts were "dissolved" → that's a regular word that doesn't need "s
  • No need to link Cook in the tracklist and credits sections
  • From my understanding the track listing and credits sections are treated separately so items are linked again there. That's why songs are linked again in a track listing section for instance even when they are linked in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: That's it from me. It's a really strong article, this is just some fine-tuning. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thank you for explaining everything to me (some answers were entertaining lol ). I have left replies on some comments in green. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support from me. All my points have been addressed, very strong article. Greets; Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tomica

[edit]

After carefully reading the article couple of times, I am confident to support this for featured article promotion. The prose reads great, the flow is amazing, grammar-wise absolutely no issues. The usage of media seems well regulated and the references are perfectly organized. All in all great! — Tom(T2ME) 15:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

Spot-check:

  • All Music writes: "her self-titled, independently released debut, The Blue Album". I read your footnote, but from the source, it would be more verifiable to say "her debut self-titled album, also known as The Blue Album". Otherwise, provide a source that indicate that All Music and the sources cited in the efn are incorrect.
  • Revised. A majority of the sources that I have seen refer to this album as The Blue Album, but I think it is better to put both titles in the prose to cover both sides. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Blue Album's release herself" → "her debut album's release" – since the Country Standard Time interview does not mention a Blue Album
  • "Five songs from The Blue Album" – "Five songs from the album" – same reason
  • The quote "sly wit topics such as her own quest for stardom" is misrepresented. What patterson means is taking on, "with sly wit, topics such as her own quest for stardom". Per MOS:CONFORM, go ahead and just add the comma but include "with". As currently written in the article "sly wit" appears to modify "topics" which it is not supposed to.

Citations:

  • Ulibas, Joseph (September 25, 2015) – link is broken
  • "Orlando Sentinel. August 25, 2002" – add |department=TV Time Plus or change to |work=TV Time Plus and move "Orlando Sentinel" to |publisher=.
  • In all Newspapers.com references, please provide a crop for easier verification when possible. Maybe there are other instances, but the only one I spotted was in the above Orlando Sentinel source which can be cropped like so. I understand this is nearly impossible with "Catching up with the cast of Life" so no complaints there.
  • A majority of the Newspaper sources have the clipped version as the link unless it is the entire page. I was uncertain on how to clip this one, but I have done so per your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-crop "Cooper, Peter (December 29, 2002)" so it is legible. I do not think the photo is needed. Cropping as close as possible makes the snapshot more legible for people without access to Newspapers.com
  • Revised. I have also replaced another source with a different clipping for the same reason. I had thought the photo was important, but I agree that it is far more important to have the text legible for people without access to Newspapers.com. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS concerns I noticed along the way:

More |department=

  • "Elizabeth Cook: Hey Y'all". The Greenville News. August 30, 2002." – |department=Upstate Weekend
  • "Elizabeth Cook: Hey Y'all". National Post. September 5, 2002" – |department=Inside E, also change |p=108
  • "Elizabeth Cook to perform at Opry". The Jackson Sun. – |department=WeekendPlus
  • This one is tricky: "Knopper, Steve (July 8, 2011). "Country a career commitment for Elizabeth Cook". Chicago Tribune." – |department=On The Town and also needs |edition=NNW
  • You might have to double-check all the Newspapers.com refs. Ping me if you have trouble figuring out the insert's name. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 20:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience and thoroughness. I am honestly not that familiar with newspapers so please forgive me for being dense in regards to this. For a majority of the sources, I have put in what I believe is the department, such as "Arts & Entertainment" for the Aydlette source. The Dayton Daily News articles appear to be published in some sort of insert titled Go! so I have tried to represent that information in the citation. Please let me know if this is incorrect as my knowledge on newspapers is rather limited, and I will try my best to learn and fix my errors. Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aoba47, there is nothing to forgive. You have done a great job. I have checked your edits and made a few minor adjustments. Basically, all I was trying to do was make sure that even if the reader did not click on the link in the citations, they could find source by just the text in the reference section. (People sometimes print our articles on paper). It can be difficult to decide what that would entail. But generally, if the page number has a letter like 2J, then no further information is needed besides the name of the paper and the date. However, some newspapers do not use a letter to identify sections (what they call "inserts" and we call department). Some newspapers like the Chicago Tribune are so big that they publish a different set of inserts for the different areas they cover. For example, NNW means the edition of the paper printed specifically for "North/Northwest Suburban Chicago". This is why sometimes Newspapers.com has a lot of copies of the same insert for the same day with some pages being completely different. So that means the p. 2 would only help the reader find the article if you told them which edition. For a different edition of the newspaper from the same day, that article may not even appear or it might appear on a different page. They do this because advertisers buy slots on specific editions they want to target, causing the paper to reorganize the insert to fit the ads. The article about Cook may be on p. 2 of the NNW edition but on p. 4 of the South Central edition, or it might not even be in the Downtown edition, which does not have a large country fan base. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the explanation. I have wonder about why copies of the same article/insert appear on Newspapers.com so that clears it up for me. It is interesting to think about how this has either already changed or will continue to change with the transition from physical to digital publication. I actually never thought about readers that print out Wikipedia articles. I'd be interested in how their reading experienced is changed because of this. But, both of those things are conversations for another day. I would be more than happy to revise anything else that needs to be fixed. I hope you are having a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no further concerns. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note

[edit]

I think we need an image review? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Thank you for bringing this up. I have replaced it with a different image. I tried to look through the internet archive to get an archived version of the original image's source links as I personally prefer that picture, but I did not have any success. Aoba47 (talk) 23:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Coffeeandcrumbs for changing the image. I think that one is much better, and I agree that it is better to have an image taken around the album's release. The images of Todd and Cook are apparently the original work of the uploader. The Cook image has been reviewed by an OTRS member. Thank you again to Nikkimaria for the review. Just wanted to bring this up here. Aoba47 (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2020 (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/Hey_Y%27all/archive1&oldid=977106614"