Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/archive2

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 2 February 2021 [1].

Kids See Ghosts (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): K. Peake 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the album Kids See Ghosts by the duo of the same name, which consists of famous rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi. The album was a critical success universally and was ranked amongst best-of lists, while it also experienced a good commercial reception in numerous countries. I promoted this article to GA over a year ago by now and have worked on it continuously since, including the times it went through a peer review and a FAC; I have taken aboard comments from the first candidate archive to help improve the article, as well as making fixes to go into as high detail as possible. K. Peake 07:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts

[edit]

Reviewing articles is not my thing but the article look good so far, I sure there be other editors point out the errors. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by The Ultimate Boss

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:The Ultimate Boss

The article looks amazing as always Kyle; there are just some minor issues. As I told LOVI33, you should ask an editor who is experienced at FAC to see which sources should be removed or replaced. For example, I see you are using Vice. Someone told me "There's no consensus about the reliability of Vice as well, according to RSP. Again, the sourcing standard for FA is higher than that of GA." The Ultimate Boss (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Ultimate Boss, I do understand where you are coming from on this subject. But I would like to comment that I have removed sources like uDiscoverMusic and 411Mania that are not up to the standard, also the Vice review is from a highly reputable critic in Robert Christgau so I think that indicates reliability and for reaching out to experienced editors, do you recommend looking at the FACs page or looking through passed articles? --K. Peake 21:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle Peake The article looks amazing! I am going to support! The Ultimate Boss (talk) 05:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Ultimate Boss Big thank you, hopefully I will get my first FA soon enough with this! --K. Peake 06:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by LOVI33

[edit]

After a review of this article, I think that this is 100% ready for FA. Support. LOVI33 21:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Thank you for opining, I was expecting comments from you after mine in the other direction earlier! --K. Peake 21:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

[edit]

I still stand by my word in the previous FAC attempt. 웃OO 17:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman Very glad to hear that; it has been great working with you here on Wiki and I recall your initial comments before pledging to support the previous FAC that I made sure to take on board! --K. Peake 17:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comment from Aoba47

[edit]

I had participated in the previous FAC for this album where I raised concerns about the audio samples. I have retired from Wikipedia so I will be unable to do a full review, but given my previous participation, I wanted to say that I still have the same concern about the article.

From my understanding, it is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and only use it when it can illustrate something that cannot be conveyed through the prose alone. I have been told in my own FACs for album articles that audio samples should restricted to items that can represent the album's overall sound or genre or something that would need to conveyed through audio rather than just prose. I do not think the current audio samples fit this criteria as the captions are almost entirely focused on the lyrics, and you do not really need the audio samples to understand what the lyrics are about.

If you want to keep these audio samples, I think a strong justification is still needed. Just to be clear, I prefer album articles to have audio samples (so I do not have any bias against them), but right now, the audio samples do not seem essential as again a reader can understand what a song's lyrics are about without the aid of an audio sample. Aoba47 (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • To further clarify this, I would think an audio sample that shows this album's psychedelic sound would be more beneficial or something demonstrates this "fusion of psychedelic and hip hop". Just wanted to at least provide one suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 Very nice to hear comments from you again; I do remember you making suggestions back when I first submitted this article as a FAC that saw me initially change the text of the audio samples due to them not being neutral enough. When you say that readers "can understand what a song's lyrics are about without the aid of an audio sample" but mention samples can be used to show the album's sound, doesn't your logic also imply that they can be used to show the artists rapping lyrics that are written about in the article? Also, I have changed the "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" sample to have text more relevant to the sound of the album by mentioning the psychedelic elements and I thought referencing the song being rap rock was worthy since the album is noted for including a rock sound a few times. Any comments now? --K. Peake 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, in the first FAC, I had discussed the neutrality of the audio captions along with this separate issue of whether or not there was a clear rationale for including non-free media. To answer your question, I do not think that is true. I could see a rationale for including an audio sample if critical commentary discussed something specific about the rapping style throughout the album in the context of the song, but I do not think having a sample to just show the artist rapping the lyrics is enough. You can simply say in the prose that this person raps these lyrics and it would still be perfectly understood without an audio sample.
  • I do not think the changes to the "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" sample are enough to justify its inclusion. I think you're overlooking one important point from my above comments. I have been told in the past that audio samples in album article should be representative of the album. The rap rock/psychedelic parts of the "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" sample refers to the particular song, not how these genres are used in the album as a whole or how this song represents that. Again, I do not think lyrics alone are a strong argument for including non-free media because again, lyrics can be discussed in the prose so even a reader who has never heard anything from this album would understand what is being discussed. I'm sorry, but I just do not see solid justifications for either audio sample. However, this is just my opinion, and I wanted to voice my concerns again per my prior involvement in the first FAC. I hope you have a great rest of your week and stay safe. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarize my concerns (as I have a tendency to ramble), I do not see how the audio samples 1) are representative of the album and 2) illustrate information that cannot be conveyed through prose alone. Lyrics can be discussed in the prose and a person does not need to hear them performed (rapping, singing, etc.) to understand a discussion about them. Aoba47 (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aoba47 I do get what you are trying to say about the audio samples and I fully respect your opinion, as well as the fact you have given me relevant advice. Even though I have tried to improve them to the best I can, we will see if the issues you believe are still prominent are enough to stop this article becoming an FA or if other users believe the current usage is warranted. Kind regards, --K. Peake 13:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AviationFreak

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:AviationFreak

This looks good to me, and I don't see any issues mentioned in the first nom still remaining. The one thing I would note is the WP:SANDWICH in the "Themes and lyrics" section. AviationFreak💬 18:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AviationFreak Hello, thank you for the support and your point about the WP guideline; how do I group two audio samples together like images? --K. Peake 19:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for jumping in on this, but you can see what I did with the Hey Y'all article for an example of how to combine two audio samples. Aoba47 (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did check that and even though the formatting is slightly different, I have now implemented this change to the article and nice memory on your part to think back to that! AviationFreak I am sure you will be pleased to see this changed, but two images are aligned to the left because they are far from interfering with lists or other items and it is better to not have every piece of media on the right to be less repetitive. --K. Peake 21:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, the article looks great! Having media on the left isn't an issue as long as it's not squishing text with something on the right. AviationFreak💬 21:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AviationFreak No it is not anywhere near being one in this context and I am amazed to have confident support from you! --K. Peake 21:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

[edit]
Ealdgyth If you read below, I clearly referenced that I removed the info from these sources... that's why I crossed them out. --K. Peake 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth Thank you for going over the sources to spot check them. I totally sympathize with your viewpoint for Your EDM and i-d; I have removed these sources since not only are they likely to contest discussion due to not being considered highly reliable anywhere, but the information they back up is about the album's cover art reception and that's not required for heavy detail here. I also removed Hypebeast since the info provided by it is not a necessity and the source is not regarded as unreliable totally but it's often disputed how reliable it really is; replaced Rap Favorites with NME because that info was already provided by the other sources unlike the tour hospitalization NME mentions. AllMusic and Vice may be disputed by WP:RSP, but it says the former's reviews are considered usable with attribution and the latter is not contested for pop culture topics, as stated earlier.
  • To cover the other sources, I will start by saying that The Fader is a magazine dedicated to covering music, style and culture which has been around since 1999. It is owned by The Fader Media and stands as the first print publication to be released via iTunes, a highly regarded digital retailer. The magazine also publishes consistently factual articles about artists in its music coverage; I see no way it is not high quality. HipHopDX is a website focused on hip hop, the genre of this album and its performers, which reports regular news around rappers and is owned by the well-regarded Warner Music Group; it has also received best hip hop website rankings to showcase reliability. On a similar note, HotNewHipHop is mostly focused on the genre and reports news about it often, publishing factual claims about artists that are separated from any reviews/opinion pieces from clear marking. AnyDecentMusic? is an aggregator similar to Metacritic that collects reviews from reputable publications, so I think this constitutes reliability. The Player FM source leads directly to an audio interview with Pusha T himself, so this content is definitely reliable. Stereogum has been an internet publications that regularly shares articles for years now, with it having received several awards and citations. 'Atwood Magazine focuses on established artists from across the world in its authentic writing; there are columns but they are identified and the source here is not from one. The about page for Central Sauce explains they have creators showcase content who are "writers, data analysts, videographers, and creatives of all kinds from around the world". It further says they are no "egotistical music critics or 'hit pieces' on [the site]" and they create content for artists they're passionate about. You can tell the dedicated and in-depth writing from those who are not egotistical or provide sensational news should be reliable. Dummy Mag and Joe are used for year-end lists as they regularly report, so I do not see any lack of reliability there. Thank you for your concerns, these are my comments! --K. Peake 21:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the rest - being the first magazine published through iTunes isn't showing high quality reliablity. As for Vice - the fact that it isn't considered realible for some coverage does not help establish taht it's a high quality source per the FA criteria. AllMusic again, what makes this reveiewer a high quality source instead of some random person doing a review? And while being owned by Warner Music Group helps - does HipHopDX have an editorial process and is it enforced? And interviews are not inherently reliable - the reliablity of them is based on the site publishing them and the interviewer. Nor does length of existence show high quality reliablity. For help with meeting the FA criteria see User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet, but given Nikkimaria's concerns below about spotchecks, I'm going to have to oppose on sourcing and suggest that this be withdrawn and the sourcing concerns including the spot check issues be worked out outside of FAC. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ealdgyth The Vice review is from Robert Christgau, one of the most revered music critics. This obviously proves reliability and Player FM is an app that provides a variety of podcasts, being supported by the likes of Apple and Google Play. HipHopDX do have an editorial process and as for your suggestion of withdrawal, I have only one of the current spot checks to fix plus I've tried to address your concerns so even though you are entitled to oppose respectfully, isn't the withdrawal opinion pushing things too far a bit? --K. Peake 16:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to ping me everytime you reply. I have the review watchlisted. As for spot checks - they are just that... spotchecks. If another reveiwer found enough concerns with those checks to oppose, I share their concern and thus it is likely that more checks need to be done. This is best accomplished outside of FAC where the time neccessary to make sure all the sources support the information can be devoted to the issue. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if you felt like I was being irritating with the mentions, but I meant it is unfair to suggest withdrawal when the article is not in terrible shape; I have added the sources now where requested by the other user and do you understand why I crossed out the ones I removed earlier? --K. Peake 17:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ

[edit]

I am afraid I won't be able to do a full review due to time constraints. However, I have some comments regarding the prose, and would like to leave in-depth reviews to other editors.

  • I don't think a sentence starting with "But" is good writing.
  • Does it add substance to the lead to mention that Kanye West and Kid Cudi had been friends in 2008?
  • Prominent production is featured from the duo avoid passive voice; probably something like "The duo produced the album with collaborations..."
  • It succeeded the release of Pusha T's Daytona and West's Ye, while preceded the release of Nas' Nasir and Teyana Taylor's K.T.S.E. This is pretty confusing... why are artists apart from West mentioned here?
  • The cover art was designed by Japanese contemporary artist Takashi Murakami, with it being based on Hokusai's landscape print series, Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji can be rewritten to "The cover art was designed by Japanese contemporary artist Takashi Murakami, who based it on Hokusai's Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji" (again, passive voice)
  • The album received widespread acclaim, with music critics pointing out the chemistry of West and Cudi in praise I personally don't like "with" as it is poor writing. Keep it concise and straightforward i.e. "The album received acclaim from critics who praised the chemistry of West and Cudi"
  • I'm pretty sure it's "top-five album" instead of top five album

I hope these comments help. Could not guarantee a full review, but I'll try to read some of the sections later. HĐ (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HĐ Thank you for the comments, I have responded above and tell me if you have anything to say further in regards to them. --K. Peake 06:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I agree with the sourcing concerns raised by Ealdgyth above; some of the sources in use here do not meet the bar of high-quality reliable sources. Examples include Central Sauce, Dummy, and HotNewHipHop.
  • Like HĐ, I have concerns about the quality of the prose. Samples include repetitive phrasings like "listed among decade-end lists", extensive use of passive voice, eg "A top five position was also attained by Kids See Ghosts", and convoluted sentences that are difficult to follow, such as "This was a position five places lower than Ye peaking at number two gave West on the chart earlier in 2018".
  • There are also issues with regards to the article's style, particularly in the extensive reliance on quotes, but also in some areas missing appropriate in-text attribution. For example, the article states in Wikipedia's voice that "4th Dimension" is "an example of bipolar disorder" - this is an opinion of a particular source, not a fact.
  • The article's structure makes it rather difficult to follow. Why is Artwork and title after Release and promotion? Why separate Charts from Commercial performance/Accolades? Suggest reapproaching how to organize this article to improve flow.
  • Spotchecks show issues with content not being supported by the citations provided. Examples include "describing Cudi as his "brother" and "the most influential artist of the past ten years"." (only the first of these quotes is in the given source) and "West released his seventh studio album The Life of Pablo with the tracks "Father Stretch My Hands, Pt. 1" and "Waves" featuring vocals by Cudi" (source supports that Cudi was featured on the former track but doesn't mention him in relation to the latter). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria Thank you for commenting, even if it is not entirely positive. I have addressed the sourcing comments earlier on this page, the list fixing is repetitive yes but I have now reworded and I've gone over the parts where top five is passive now, I think. I have found some convulted sentences in the commercial performance section and altered, but I shouldn't merge that with accolades and charts since they are all more than large enough on their own, though I moved the artwork and title section like you said per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice. I have added a citation for Cudi's vocals on "Waves" and will look at the spot-checked quote soon, as I am going out now; I apologize for this original research and it was included in the article before I actually began working on it – I should've spot checked things more heavily! --K. Peake 13:42, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria I have now fixed all of the OR you pointed out and see my other comments as a reference point for elsewhere, but how do you feel about the article after these improvements even if you still oppose? --K. Peake 17:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point I'm not prepared to withdraw my oppose. While I appreciate you've looked at those couple of examples, they were examples only. On a quick additional look, I see in the lead that "the duo experienced brief fallings-out in 2013 and 2016" but the text supports only 2016. I would suggest that, as you indicated above, a more in-depth review of potential OR/verifiability issues would be appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note

[edit]

Two experienced reviewers have each identified a number of issues which they believe make this article not yet ready to be reviewed at FAC and have each formally opposed. I am therefore going to archive this nomination with the suggestion that the points raised be worked on - not just the specific issues raised, but that any other aspects of the article which may give rise to similar issues also be checked. It might be best to do this under the aegis of peer review, but that is only a suggestion. The usual two week wait will apply before the nominator can nominate another article at FAC.

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/Kids_See_Ghosts_(album)/archive2&oldid=1004602096"