Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/archive1

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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 10 September 2020 [1].

Kids See Ghosts (album)

Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for review against the FA criteria because it is a notable collaborative project between the two famous rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi as Kids See Ghosts, which was highly successful critically and charted in numerous countries too. The article was heavily worked on by me when I brought it to GA status less than a year ago and I have since continuously expanding it, while put it through a peer review recently that I responded to. I have helped well-researched during all of this definitely and made sure that the writing has no errors, while citations have been fixed by me and I provided an appropriate amount of illustration. However, feel free to comment if my hard work has not covered certain areas! --K. Peake 16:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Aoba47

I unfortunately do not have to do a full review, but I wanted to leave a few comments on the article's use of audio samples. I have been told repeatedly in the past to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and to only use audio samples in an album article if it is representative of a larger sound on the album. I do not see any of the three audio samples doing this so I do not think they fit this article.
The audio samples' captions are quite long and dense, and I am not sure this is the best way to present this information. There are also several parts that make question the neutrality of the text. For instance, look at this sentence: (The song has a liberating rush and in a bold moment of triumph, West energetically proclaims his freedom.) Phrases like "liberating rush", "bold moment of triumph" and "energetically proclaims" read too much like praise and is not objective. I can find several instances of this throughout the captions. I would encourage you to look more closely at the use of the audio samples and how the captions are worded. Aoba47 (talk) 23:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 It is fine I appreciate the drive by, but you kind of do have a point about the neutrality of the audio samples. I have started to fix this now by first doing the one you mentioned and will probably look at the other songs soon, though are you sure what you said about the captions needing to be representative of the album's sound is true? If yes, should I try and reword the texts to be of more relevance, which may include citing different ref(s)? --K. Peake 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my experience, it is encouraged that audio samples only be used on album articles if they represent something throughout the album (i.e. like a sound or style). So yes, if you want to keep any of these audio samples, then you would need to change the caption to better convey how they represent the album. I would honestly recommend rewriting the audio samples entirely, and moving the information already present in the samples to the prose. There are still some POV issues, like I find phrases like "emotive honesty" and "soft yet self-assured voice" to read too much like praise or a review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still do not believe the audio samples have a strong enough rationale for inclusion. The captions focus on how the songs represent the album lyrically, but this information can be conveyed with just the prose. It is recommended to keep Non-free media usage restricted to points which cannot be represented through the prose alone. For instance, I have seen audio samples in an album article show how a song is representative of the album's sound (whether it be genre, musical instruments, vocal style, etc.); in that case, a reader who is unfamiliar with whatever sonic element being discussed can listen and have a better understanding of whatever is being discussed. I still think further work is necessary, but that is just my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I understand your concerns, though in this context the information written on the samples' texts would be too much to write out in prose, though it gives relevant information to themes and lyrics; are you sure things actually have to be 100% about the actual music of the album? --K. Peake 10:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already repeatedly said, that is my understanding. I still do not see a strong enough rationale for either of the two audio samples' inclusion as the information in both captions can be read and understood even by an unfamiliar reader without listening to either song. I prefer album articles to have audio samples, but they still require strong justification for inclusion. Since this conversation appears to be going in circles, I will leave this to other editors. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 I am sorry if I am sounding too repetitive here, it is fine for you to leave the discussion for now if you wish. --K. Peake 20:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just do not see this conversation going anywhere productive. I already let my opinion know (a few times) and you disagree. I will not outright oppose based on this, but I do have issues with how the audio samples are currently being used in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from 100cellsman

"Prior to the release, West and Cudi enjoyed a strong relationship as close friends and musical collaborators since meeting in 2008, and expressed a desire to record a collaborative album. However, an album never initially materialized, with the duo instead experiencing brief fallings-out in 2013 and 2016. They reunited a year later, when the first studio sessions for the album began. "

This segment is a little wordy. I suggest changing to: "Prior to its release, West and Cudi became close friends and collaborators when meeting in 2008, and expressed a desire to record a collaborative album. But had not materialized and the duo experienced brief fallings-out in 2013 and 2016. After reuniting a year later, the first studio sessions for the album began."

Prominent production is featured from both members of the duo" Just use "the duo"

"Critics noted the genre of Kids See Ghosts as a fusion of psychedelic, rap rock and hip hop" Its a bit strange to me for critics to be mentioned here.

"with a number of music critics" Omit "a number of"

Completed all of the above with changes --K. Peake 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See FAC instructions, pls avoid done templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia Sorry, I was not aware and have changed this to prose now. --K. Peake 16:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the full dates e.g. "February 14, 2016" and "February 24, 2016" interfere with readability. Though with release dates the month and day can be kept for more context.

I felt like the background and recording section was hard to read. To me I feel like it has too much detail, however, I'm not one to determine what to leave in and out since I'm not extremely familiar with the subject matter.

For the captions in the audio samples, I also second Aoba47's opinion.

I might find more to say, but these are my general thoughts, mostly on the lead. 웃O O 09:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman Thank you for the comments, I have used a number of them to improve this article. However, the dates seem mostly fine but the February instance you pointed out was an exception as they were very close to each other in terms of both time period and prose. For more context on the background and recording section, it may seem to have too much detail since the information about different albums is included but that is because they were all part of West's Wyoming Sessions, along with Kids See Ghosts. Though I did change the mentioning critics in the musical description, I have an answer to your question about that, which is that the genres should be mentioned in the lead but I changed to writers instead since it does read kind of weirdly elsewise. As for the audio samples, I explained my point of view to Aoba47 above. --K. Peake 16:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: There are a couple aspects of the writing I probably would have done differently. But they're not relevant for the discussion. I think the article has sufficient enough information to become FA. I just have a minor suggestion to make the album art alt text a bit more descriptive. 웃O O 13:35, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 and 100cellsman, I am replying at the bottom of this page because my comments are intended for both of you. First of all, I would like to say thank you for the suggestions to help improve this article. Now, to get to what I have done, the samples' texts have been edited by me to warrant usage properly in the article so I suggest taking a look at the captions; they are of relevance to the album now but I know the editing is only recent, so tell me if they read awkwardly or any similar issues. Also, I did change the cover art alt text as I actually agreed that it was improper at the time of the "weak support" minor suggestion. Any comments below would be much appreciated! --K. Peake 16:40, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman How do you feel after my recent editing of this article? --K. Peake 20:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant a more literal description of the alt text, but the album art does has its own section so I don't think it should be necessary. Audio sample caption wise, given some of your values and the modifications you made, it isn't really an issue with me anymore. 웃O O 23:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman Thank you for elaborating, are you sure still a weak support or willing to change the level now? --K. Peake 19:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change it. lol 웃O O 02:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from HĐ

The article looks in good shape. I have a comment about the Commercial performance section: this section includes disparate information on the album's chart positions throughout several regions. While I can see that this is a common practice in music-related articles, per WP:CHARTTRAJ it's usually not recommended, as this creates a collection of indiscriminate non-encyclopedic details. I'd suggest trimming down the section to essential information (i.e. overall US performance; high-tier positions in selected countries). HĐ (talk) 06:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from The Ultimate Boss

The article looks amazing, but I agree with HD though. Maybe you should trim the commercial section a bit. The Ultimate Boss (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Ultimate Boss Do you have any comments in response after I have trimmed over a week later? --K. Peake 15:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Peake, I'm so sorry for the late reply! I have been so busy with school that I didn't even notice it... It looks a lot better now, so I'm going to Support!

Commercial performance trimming

HĐ and The Ultimate Boss, I made this sub-section so I can reply to both of you at the same time. I have now trimmed the commercial performance section down to not including any positions below the top 10, is this fine now or should I have reordered it geographically as done for song articles? --K. Peake 14:47, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs more work. Here are some examples (not all)

Unlike Ye, Kids See Ghosts failed to give West a chart topper on the US Billboard 200, with the album debuting at number two on the chart, being blocked from the top spot by Dave Matthews Band's ninth studio album Come Tomorrow (2018), and selling 142,000 album-equivalent units, of which 79,000 were pure album sales, and being streamed over 90 million times → I don't see the comparisonn to Ye necessary, neither is the fact that it charted behind another album; the wording for the figures is weird, try something like "totalling 142,000 units including 79,000 pure sales and 90 million streams"

I reworded a good amount of this but kept the Ye statement since the album was released a week prior and both are from the Wyoming Sessions, plus kept the album's name that charted higher though did avoid repetition. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this, Kids See Ghosts stood as West's 10th top-five album and Cudi's sixth top-five album in the country → ditto; plus the wording sounds like Kids See Ghosts also failed to give Cudi's a number one like his previous

Yeah you have a point here, I also changed "the country" since I have not mentioned "the United States" specifically by this point. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sales surpassed the first week projections of 100,000 to 110,000 album-equivalent units and 55,000 to 60,000 pure album sales, though a debut at number two had been predicted → overly detailed (WP:TOOMUCH and WP:NOTNEWS)

Removed pointless statistics. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The next week, it exited the top 10 of the Billboard 200, descending 12 places to number 14 on the chart, though fell down nine places to number 10 on the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart → I don't see the connection to use the preposition "though" here; ditto for overly detailed

I have read WP:CHARTS and am aware of the guidelines for trajectory, though it is fine here since this is only reporting the following week which is notable because not only did the album fall out of the top 10 directly after being at number one, but various sales stats are also notable like the exact number of streams. Also, "though" is used here because it shows the parallel of how the album was still in the top 10 of the Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart but not the main albums chart. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31,000 album-equivalent units were sold that week → Don't start a sentence with a numerical figure (WP:MOSNUM); plus passive voice is generally discouraged

Sorry I had not read that part of the numerical guidelines before, have made fixes to the sentence now. --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My overall suggestion is that, as an encyclopedia, the prose needs to be simple and comprehensive at the same time. Try to include every essential information, but also exclude anything that may come off as tabloid-quality (i.e. update on sale of every week). I'm not an expert in prose work, but I'll try to give the article a comprehensive look if possible. HĐ (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ I have read through your FAC suggestions and implemented them, how do you feel now? --K. Peake 07:48, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This has been open for well over a month and has not seen any activity in recent weeks. Therefore, I will be archiving it shortly and it may be re-nominated after the customary two-week waiting period. --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. --Laser brain (talk) 12:11, 10 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.