Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kids See Ghosts (album)/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 promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 3 July 2021 [1].

Kids See Ghosts (album)

[edit]
Nominator(s): K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the album Kids See Ghosts by the duo of the same name, which consists of successful rappers Kanye West and Kid Cudi. The album was a widespread critical success and was ranked amongst best-of lists, while it also experienced commercial success in various countries. After having promoted this article to GA status in September 2019, I have frequently monitored it and stayed hard at work, with the article having gone through a peer review and two unfortunately unsuccessful FA candidacies as well as becoming part of a GT and the main article of another! I have looked thoroughly at the previous FACs, assuring to take on as many issues as I can, but I am willing to listen to any further comments made on this one. K. Peake 16:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Shoot for the Stars

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:Shoot for the Stars

The article looks great Kyle, but the sources are the reason it keeps failing. Sources like HotNewHipHop and Hypebeast are perfectly fine for GA but not are not considered "high quality" sources for FA. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 18:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoot for the Stars The album sources classify HNHH as reliable so this one is not really an issue and I will start going over the Hypebeast material properly soon; once this is resolved, would you switch to support? --K. Peake 18:44, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kyle, the people at FAC do not care what the album sources classify. Only the "highest quality" sources are allowed. And HNHH is not one of them. You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot for the Stars It is debatable whether that's a high quality source though, plus do you support yourself or not??? Also, get on with reviewing "Say You Will", as you've been quite active and that review was opened days ago. --K. Peake 08:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot for the Stars I have removed HotNewHipHop from this article altogether and done the same for numerous similar sources; are you willing to support now? --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support! You know I'm shooting for the stars, aiming for the moon 💫 (talk) 05:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shoot for the Stars Thanks a ton, that's really satisfying to hear after I worked so hard on removing the sources from the article adequately! --K. Peake 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman

[edit]

I greatly respect the effort being made to improve the article, especially on overshadowed topics regarding black music and musicians. Hope this gets through this time! 웃OO 18:07, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TheAmazingPeanuts

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:TheAmazingPeanuts

Why integers from zero to nine are not spelled out in words? They are supposed to be that way per MOS:NUMERAL. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheAmazingPeanuts Read MOS:NUM advice on comparative values; doesn't that imply these should be written as numbers when integers of 10 and larger are used in the same sentence? --K. Peake 14:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: I don't think that doesn't matter, the guidelines says numbers from zero to nine should be spelled out in words, even integers of 10 and larger are used in the same sentence. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheAmazingPeanuts: Done now, do you support? --K. Peake 08:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kyle Peake: Yes, wish you luck by getting this article to featured article status. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:49, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:Heartfox

Version reviewed

Quality—addressed

  • What makes the following sources worthy of inclusion in a featured article?
    • The Fader
    • Rap-Up
    • HotNewHipHop
    • Highsnobiety
    • HipHopDX
    • Fact
    • Atwood Magazine
    • Rough Trade
    • Dazed
    • Analog Planet
    • Hipersonica
    • laut.de
    • The Line of Best Fit
    • Sonic Magazine
I am going to start by responding to the assessment of the sources, as I will be going out soon so am not able to go over all of your points in one go. The Fader, Rap-Up and HotNewHipHop are all listed as reliable at album sources plus they all have a proper staff team and editorial process that reports facts unless clearly differentiated as opinion pieces; more of these are published by HNHH but none are in this article. Highsnobiety never came up in the last FAC but I do believe it is reliable due to covering news in subjects including music, also the source changed away from being a blog a while ago. The staff are over 100 strong, so it does not have a problem with lack of an editorial team. HipHopDX focuses on both the album and the performers' genre of hip hop, reporting news regularly to do with rappers and the well-regarded Warner Music Group has ownership of it plus there is an editorial process. A wide range of US music culture is covered by the nearly 20 years old magazine Fact, which established reliable source The Guardian has named as influential thus showing it is worthy of inclusion. Atwood Magazine is a magazine with 40 writers that are based in various countries, with the content focusing on many different artists and it is run by an editor-in-chief. Furthermore, the magazine sets out to provide writing that is authentic and it also was a Webby Award honoree for Best Music Website, helping establish reliability. Rough Trade is the site of an independent record label that has been around for decades and pressed releases for many artists, so it should be clearly reliable. The website for Dazed launched in 2006 digitally for the magazine that has been around since 1991, setting out with a dedicated editorial team including various writers. Blogs are clearly separated from other content on Analog Planet, so the source is not a WP:SELFPUB violation and best-of lists are often published by the website. Hipersonica seems like an unknown quantity due to it being a Spanish website, but the source is dedicated to music and publishes proper articles rather than blogs. Music is dealt with exclusively by laut.de, including hip hop, plus 14 music journalists and programmers work with the magazine and I think that shows reliability. The album sources page I linked to earlier also classifies The Line of Best Fit as reliable, plus reputable aggregator Metacritic has used the site's reviews and established reliable sources such as NME and The Independent have mentioned the reviews. Sonic Magazine has been around for decades and set out to provide well-written music journalism specifically, also it has a proper editorial team. --K. Peake 10:07, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HotNewHipHop—In the previous FAC, both Ealdgyth and Nikkimaria expressed concerns about this source. Even Shoot for the Stars above didn't think it was "high quality". You're going to need a stronger justification than them having a staff to persuade everyone.
  • I will replace or remove this in all areas to the best of my ability come to think of it, as the publication has repeatedly been questioned like you said. By now I've got round to wiping all usages of HotNewHipHop as a source from the article, managing to replace the majority by using reliable sources! --K. Peake 10:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fader—I am not seeing a staff page or evidence of editorial process.
  • I tried hard to research this but they have all contributors listed on separate pages, including the staff that are listed as a contributor rather than members by name. The source has now been omitted from the article by me, which has thankfully not caused any major content removal! --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rap-Up—What concerns me is that the article has no author listed and I am not seeing a staff page/editorial process.
  • I have replaced this source with a Billboard one, as it is better to use a well-regarded source than one with its reliability in question when both report the same info. --K. Peake 19:29, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • HipHopDX—Because they are owned by Warner (but not when the articles cited were written) and have a visible editorial process etc. I am willing to accept, but I suggest you provide further evidence in case others take issue with it.
  • Rough Trade—I think I was confused because you linked to a record label. It appears the link should be Rough Trade (shops), not the record label website.
  • I suggest you elaborate on the justifications for the non-struck sources. Have reliable publications cited them recently, have they been used in books by reputable publishers, do the authors have strong credentials, etc.? It is not enough to have a staff list and not be a blog.
  • I have replaced Fact with Exclaim! now, plus in that part of music and production the booklet is used to help source every sentence from the Plain Pat one so I invoked it only once from there onwards per overcite guidelines. Will look at the other sources tomorrow. Sonic Magazine have managed to secure interviews with many popular artists including Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie and Jay-Z, helping establish them as reliable alongside their co-signs from major Swedish newspaper Göteborgs-Posten and well renowned journalist Jan Gradvall [sv].1 The German languages and literature department at the Uni of Michigan ranked laut.de number one on a recommended list for online magazines, plus the publication's coverage was acclaimed by a portal of major German newspaper Rheinische Post; these accolades should indicate reliability. I have now replaced the usage of Atwood Magazine under themes and lyrics with reliable sources that are used elsewhere in the article too. Highsnobiety won the Cultural Blog/Website award at the 2017 Webby Awards, has collaborated with Xbox and Puma, plus here is proof of an editorial process; it says "online editorial", also the about page specifies that the company is drawn to the ideas rather than claiming to present them. Don't all of these combined demonstrate reliability? Taking a look at the about and contact pages of Analog Planet, the website lacks a proper editorial team, authors with strong credentials or any similar recognition, so I have removed it. Hipersonica do not even have an about us page, plus the other pages on the website do not establish reliability themselves and it has now been omitted from this article by me. The new addition of Mondo Sonoro may raise eyebrows due to it being a foreign source, but the magazine is distributed in clothes shops, discos, pubs and music venues in as wide a range as eight regions of Spain, each area for which it has a local edition. Two uni students were the founders and the pulication even evolved from a fanzine to a magazine, plus it has collaborated with Terra Networks and Matadero Madrid, while the contact page specifies the editorial process for the 25 workers. All of this should be solid proof of reliability, but I've either removed or elaborated on my defense of the sources you questioned. --K. Peake 07:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonic Magazinne—I suggest adding a link to the Swedish Wikipedia page.

AllMusic—addressed

  • fn 23 → citing a user review on AllMusic?
  • fn 26 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "On June 1, 2018, a week before the release of Kids See Ghosts, West released his eighth studio album Ye as the second album of the "Wyoming Sessions"."?
  • The GQ source is used for the sessions part, while the release date is backed up by AllMusic.
  • Can you use something other than AllMusic for the release date? Surely Billboard or something has an article with the Ye release date?
  • fn 32 → why is an AllMusic review being cited for "A week after its release, fellow rapper Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir as the fourth album of the "Wyoming Sessions""?
  • Pitchfork might be slightly better to cite for this. This article also gives Nasir as the fourth album.
  • fn 33 → consensus at WP:ALLMUSIC seems to be it is mostly only reliable for reviews. Are there alternative sources that can be used for the K.T.S.E. release date? Why does it need be cited for track listings (fn 46)? Surely you can cite liner notes or a different source. I suggest limiting the source to the review part only. I don't think this is unreasonable either as this is not an obscure release. Also, attributing the reviewer to the rest of the page (tracklist, release date, etc.) is inaccurate as they're not the author.
  • Done for the track listing even though I was using it due to the source displaying the order online, but I think it is usable for release info since that sidebar is not written against like genres plus the dates are from review sources. --K. Peake 18:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • June 23 is written in text, but AllMusic says June 22, as does this Billboard article?
  • No idea where I got June 23, 2018 from, probably misread something and got it stuck in my mind. I replaced with the Billboard ref for the release date, while invoking the PF one you listed here too because it supports the album's placement in the sessions. AllMusic has now been removed entirely from the article by me, apart from the KSG review that is seen as usable. --K. Peake 07:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks—addressed

  • fn 1 → good
  • fn 10 → "who had since admitted himself into a rehabilitation facility after battling with depression and suicidal thoughts following a Facebook post" → this wording is a bit weird. He made a Facebook post and then entered rehab? That's not what the source says. Additionally I think this is too close to the article text of "had checked into rehab after battling depression and suicidal thoughts".
  • fn 11 → does not apply to the sentence after the comma
  • Can you explain what fn means, as I am confused what you are specifically referring since not all of these numbers are in order with the refs? --K. Peake 18:30, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the number between the brackets [11] from the version reviewed link at the top of the section.
  • "with the tour being cancelled after the rapper brought Cudi out to perform at his Sacramento show" → which source supports this?
  • I don't know how those September 2016 sources ended up there to be honest, have now added a Complex ref that supports the cancellation and Cudi's appearance; interestingly enough, this was one of the sources used to replace The Fader. --K. Peake 06:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 14 → good
  • fn 16 → which quote in the article supports "In March 2018, Cudi was spotted recording with West in Wyoming"?
  • fn 27 → Cudi is not listed
  • fn 31 → ok
  • fn 35 → ok
  • fn 42 → ok
  • fn 48 → ok
  • "showed two caricatures that appeared to be of West and Cudi stood by a ball of smoke with a face" → this is really close to the article text "The image shows what is seemingly two caricatures of West and Cudi standing next to a ball of smoke with a face"
  • fn 52 → ok
  • fn 63 → source only says GOOD Music; Def Jam is only mentioned is the Apple Music thing at the bottom, which is a separate source. Wicked Awesome is unmentioned in either.
  • Changed to a PF source which mentions both GOOD and Def Jam, plus the Wicked Awesome label is included for numerous releases due to being on the back cover like me and TheAmazingPeanuts discussed; should the booklet be added as a secondary ref to back this up or is it fine now you have full context? Also, the NME ref for the digital download and streaming part in release and promotion mentions the label. --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Pitchfork article does not indicate digital download release; it only gives streaming services. I would add the back cover citation as well. Which NME ref are you referring to?
  • In the current revision, I am referring to ref 49 that mentions Wicked Awesome as one of the labels. Also, the source backs up the album as being released for download since it mentions Apple Music. --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you add ref 49 and the booklet to the citation cell where ref 59 currently is?
  • fn 65 & 66d → where are you seeing August 3, 2018?
  • fn 65 → only Def Jam is given, not Wicked Awesome or GOOD Music
  • fn 66a → source says August 22, 2018, not September 28, 2018
  • Comment I changed to just 2018 since none of the Amazon sources give a specific date apart from the US and Australia ones (the latter says September 28), but does them all listing 2018 as the original release date properly source this? --K. Peake 15:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The year only is fine. However, you have rowspanned the 3 labels but the Amazon sources do not support that. Amazon.com and .de give Def Jam, .co.uk gives Virgin, .au gives GOOD Music.
  • What should I do here, as the album was obviously release through GOOD Music and Def Jam Recordings on all of the ones that list either but some listed GOOD and others listed the distributor in Def Jam; maybe merge these ones into a various citation for the labels and add the UK one separately as Virgin?? Or do you have any other suggestions? --K. Peake 21:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh right, done. This thread applies to the four points below too, as the citations are all part of the same ref like they were in the old revision. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 66a → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam
  • fn 66b, fn 66c & 66d → source says 2018, doesn't specify September 28, 2018
  • fn 66b → only Virgin is given, not GOOD, Wicked Awesome, or Def Jam
  • fn 66c → only GOOD Music is given, not Wicked Awesome or Def Jam

Formatting—addressed

  • fn 61 Consequence is unlinked, but it is linked in fn 73?
  • fn 91, 93–95 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent?

More to come... Heartfox (talk) 07:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cudi was featured on the tracks "Ghost Town", alongside PartyNextDoor and 070 Shake, and "No Mistakes", alongside Charlie Wilson and Caroline Shaw." → "appeared" may be a better wording as he does not seem to be credited as a featured artist, but "associated performer".
  • There appears to be a pinky vinyl version missing from the release history section according to RecordStoreDay.
  • Comment should I list this as being released by GOOD and Def Jam since the source mentions only the latter, but it is known that was the label used for distribution so maybe I can add GOOD Music without this mentioning it due to WP:OVERCITE guidelines? --K. Peake 07:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 7, 20, 25, 82, 86, 92, 98, 99, 100, 105 → is there a reason url-status=live is absent? They are all live URLs. Some I could understand bypassing paywalls but some of these are freely accessible.
  • They are all actually live even if paywalls exist, so I added the parameter. Not sure if this wasn't there initially due to me or another user forgetting to add, or the bot missing the parameter for these URLs. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone articles are url-status=limited.
  • fn 26 → "via" is for when the source comes from another provider, like ProQuest. As the url is from Tidal, and it's citing Tidal, you can write publisher=Tidal and remove the via.
  • fn 87 URL is dead.
  • Oh you meant the status needed changing, sorry I thought you were taking issue with the original URL being dead... thanks to TheAmazingPeanuts but I'd have changed it anyway if I knew what you were talking about initially. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More spotchecks

  • fn 25 → title italicizes Nasir.
  • "Nas released his eleventh studio album Nasir" → which source says it's the eleventh?
  • Comment does a source really need to be provided that explicitly states this or does it fall in the same category as info like Nas and Pusha T being rappers, for which no source is provided due to this info being basic? --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The eleventh part must have been a mistake on my part from misreading somewhere else, have now changed to twelfth since chronologies for albums are basic info really. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "West's 2018 "Wyoming Sessions" recordings" → source does not specify 2018; are you sure all of the "Wyoming Sessions" albums were recorded in 2018? Maybe just omit "2018" from the sentence.
  • The following prose mentions all of the albums being released in 2018, but removed from this part of the sentence because it is a bit too monotonous for a FAC when I've mentioned the exact release date of the album in the same sentence. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Plain Pat contributed production to "Feel the Love", "4th Dimension", "Reborn", and "Kids See Ghosts". Evan Mast helped produce "Feel the Love", "Fire", and "Reborn". "Feel the Love", "4th Dimension", and "Kids See Ghosts" include production from record producer Noah Goldstein. Production was contributed to the tracks "Fire", "4th Dimension", and "Freeee (Ghost Town, Pt. 2)" by record producer BoogzDaBeast. Record producer Dot da Genius, Cudi's WZRD bandmate, co-produced the tracks "Reborn" and "Cudi Montage" for Kids See Ghosts." → not in source
  • I did address earlier that after I removed The Fader, all of the info from the Plain Pat sentence onwards in this para is at least partially sourced by the booklet, but I have invoked that solely at the end of the para after this point per WP:OVERCITE. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • By only citing one reference at the end, it gives the impression that it supports everything. Please add references that support the rest of the sentence to the end of it. Heartfox (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done and added the booklet every two sentences before, but it's only at the end of the para afterwards since every sentence following this is only sourced by it. --K. Peake 06:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can also do this for the first two sentences of the paragraph; only the one at the end of the second sentence is necessary as it's the same and only thing cited. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 9 → ok
  • fn 27 → ok
  • fn 33 → ok
  • fn 39 → ok
  • fn 49 → ok
  • fn 60 → ok
  • fn 64 → ok
  • fn 67 → ok
  • fn 72 → ok
  • fn 75 → ok
  • fn 86 → ok
  • fn 97 → ok
  • fn 98 → ok
  • "Kids See Ghosts was West's 10th top-five album and Cudi's 6th top-five album in the United States." → not in source
  • "On the US Top R&B/Hip-Hop Albums chart, the album entered at number one" → not in source. the thing at the bottom is not an actual chart, it's their measure of rap/hip hop albums on the BB200. cite fn 148 instead.
  • fn 110 → ok
  • fn 111 → ok
  • fn 115 → ok
  • fn 121 → ok
  • fn 125 → ok
  • are the sample credits sourced from the liner notes?
  • fn 139 → it gives this week and last week; how do we know last week at #76 was the peak?
  • AGATA does not provide chart histories for artists like others, plus citing weekly Billboard charts is acceptable here so this should be as well. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point moreso was that citing weekly chart issues is acceptable when there are no chart histories published by the organisation, so isn't this fine? Citing every single issue on which the album was present just to show the peak would be very tedious. --K. Peake 10:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not specifically do so like a chart history but the position of last week is mentioned as being lower so that's the closest to this, also AGATA is a reliable source therefore with these two pieces of info and my earlier explanation, can't this citation remain? --K. Peake 05:56, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 152 → ok

If everything above is addressed, this will be a pass. Heartfox (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the above comments, only not making changes where I do not believe I should do; feel free to elaborate if you still disagree with anything. --K. Peake 07:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Barring issues indicated by other editors, I will say this is a pass. Congratulations on getting the article this far and I would say the sourcing has improved significantly during this review. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 07:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox Thank you so much, I have collapsed your comments since they are now resolved, but would it be ok for this sub-section to be retitled with the support part like the other ones to be clearer for all readers? --K. Peake 08:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't review to make a general support it's just the source review pass. Heartfox (talk) 16:50, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh fair enough my apologies for the misinterpretation, feel free to add any further comments about this article! --K. Peake 20:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from LOVI33

[edit]

Definitely ready for FA in my opinion. The sources seem okay to use for me, the prose looks amazing and I don't see any MOS issues. Great job! LOVI33 19:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOVI33 Thanks a lot for your support; I am still having to fix sourcing at points since other editors have different standards! --K. Peake 20:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from isento

[edit]
Resolved comments from User:Isento

I recommend replacing "rappers/producers" with "rapper-producers", since the single "s" at the end plurlizes the compound construction as a whole, while the dash serves the same function as what the slash is meant to but without the possibility of meaning "either/or". isento (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --K. Peake 05:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend condensing the lead's discussion of the duo's pre-history and being more specific to engage readers about the story, since the background section paints some nasty emotions between the two. Something like, "West and Cudi had collaborated on each other's solo recordings since 2008, but experienced personal quarrels stemming from creative tension as well as mental health issues prior to Kids See Ghosts. After reconciling in 2016, West and Cudi recorded the album at the former's ranch in Jackson Hole, in sessions that also produced West's 2018 album Ye ..." The next paragraph reads a bit monotonously, listing names and credits off without much insight into the recording process. I recommend revising it with details from the music and production section. isento (talk) 02:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento I have rewritten the lead similarly to what you said but did not mention Ye or the Jackson Hole sessions in the first para, as that info is provided properly in the second one plus the 2016 recording was before the Wyoming Sessions started. Also, I've given more details from the musical section but does the loosely styled part read fine, or should I reword to something else? Thank you for the comments. --K. Peake 06:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better! I'll revisit the article later with some more reviewing, but given the above reviews, I'm leaning toward support... isento (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I replaced "loosely styled" with "fragmented" on my own behalf since that flows better, thought I await any more comments and the hardest part has been sources, but I've finally fixed all bad ones today! --K. Peake 19:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In "background and recording," mention their mental illness in the paragraph leading up to the recording, since it has more connection as background to the two artists. And rearrange the Pusha T album detail somewhere else, since the first sentence of a paragraph should introduce the paragraph's main idea(s). isento (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did my best to address that concern above myself, but feel free to copy-edit yourself as well... I would also ask that you check each paragraph for repetitions of years in the month-day-year dates. It is only necessary to mention the year the first time in a paragraph if subsequent dates in the same paragraph are from the same year. isento (talk) 21:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento Copy editing is fine to do for FACs when it is only light as you've contributed, so thank you but make sure not to get carried away if you have any further concerns. I did change the prose of the Pusha T sentence despite keeping it in your set position, as saying the album is among the releases from the sessions and then calling it the first of them in the same sentence reads tediously. We have come to contrasting stances about how often the year should be mentioned when it reoccurs consecutively, with you and me believing once a para and once every two sentences, respectively. In this article, I have tried to cut down on the number of times repeated years are directly written in prose since your comments by mentioning only the month and day at points in as many places as possible, plus have used phrasing like "the same month as..." on more occasions than before. Hope this is sufficient, as it is a reasonable compromise of our two ideologies! Also, I would suggest that you strike out comments when they have been resolved like the other users have done... makes it a lot easier to see what has got done! --K. Peake 07:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, well I usually see brief points struck out, not entire paragraphs, but I will confirm here that the above has been addressed... But some of the subsequent text needs more than lightweight copy-editing tbh. In "Themes and lyrics", "Fighting demons" isn't encyclopedic/formal writing - I would suggest "battling sources of mental health illness" or something of that nature. Replace "delays" with "impediments". Remove "deeply" from the sentence on "Kids See Ghosts" unless you can go into depth about how it does it "deeply" - otherwise it's useless to readers. Rephrase the next sentence to avoid the "sees" construction, as that isn't formal writing either. isento (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In instances where you refer to "release" (such as "prior to release"), please specify the subject of the release or use the determiner its. ex. "prior to the album's release", or "prior to its release". To avoid ambiguity. isento (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the comments, I do understand why you may not want to strike through full paragraphs so that is fine! Regarding the first issue, I did replace "fighting demons" with "battling against their mental demons" since the demons may not be real but they are what appears to be haunting Kids See Ghosts in their head, plus I need to follow the source to a certain degree per WP:OR. I did take on all of the other suggestions fully, apart from the one instance in which I used "prior to the release" in the third sentence of the lead instead because that comes directly after the release sentence for the album. Hopefully I will be able to get your support soon enough. --K. Peake 18:28, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, great. Just a few more items: "demons" (as you see is defined there) in this context refers to a person's "fears or anxieties", so replacing it with "battling their fears and anxieties" would be faithful to the source and more academic in tone. The last thing I would suggest is, in "Commercial performance", replacing "pushing" with "registering" or "recording", since "push" primarily refers to the physical action and in this context the meaning is again figurative. isento (talk) 19:07, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed "demons" to "fears and anxieties", but kept "mental" in prose to be specific... plus used "registering" for the certified units. Ready to support, I guess? --K. Peake 20:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I feel comfortable offering my support to this article now. Great work on a good album from a couple of talented and good-hearted, if flawed, human beings. isento (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isento Thank you so much, it is a true honour to have your highly significant endorsement!!! --K. Peake 06:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, buddy. isento (talk) 06:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from magiciandude

[edit]
Resolved comments from User: Magiciandude

I don't really have much to go on since the grammar in the article is fine to me and I'm not really an expert on the prose. One thing I noticed is that the past FACs mention keeping non-free files to a minimum. While not mentioned previously, I would remove the album's artwork on the artwork section since the album cover is already presented and the rationale doesn't justify it being outside of the infobox. Since the article describes the artwork that is the same as the album cover, the image doesn't need to be posted twice. Alternatively, you can just use a public domain image of Thirty-six Views of Mount Fuji since it's mentioned as being influential for the album's artwork. Erick (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Magiciandude Thank you for your comments but they are supposed to be added in a sub-section, which I have fixed for you. However, I have implemented what you suggested by adding an image from the series to illustrate what the mountains in the cover art's background are based on. This is one that does not have its own article because that would cause issues with wikilinking when we don't know what print the artwork is based on specifically but the mountains showcase relevance... do you support this nom now? --K. Peake 16:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gladly give you my support! This article is otherwise fantastic and it'd be a shame if it failed again because of NFCC (which the FAC takes very seriously). Erick (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Magiciandude Thank you a lot for helping me switch to a better image and eventually supporting, plus I've retitled your sub section to make this clearer to viewers of the FAC and collapsed the comments to save space. --K. Peake 06:01, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ReVeluv02

[edit]

Everything seems to be already good! The fact that other Wikipedians already supported this for candidacy on being a "FA" is already great! You seem to have frequently monitored it as you said, and that means you really worked hard on making the article a "FA". The structure of the article itself is already genuine! You have my full support on this one. Great work Kyle! ReVeluv02 (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReVeluv02 Cheers for the support and nice observation of the responses from others, especially since they show that I have taken a lot of comments on to bring the article to top shape! I see this being a FA soon, plus sweet catch on the structure comment. --K. Peake 21:13, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass

[edit]

Fair use rationale for the album cover in the infobox looks fine, others images are freely licensed and nothing stands out as looking problematic in the file licensing. Hog Farm Talk 21:14, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm That is really good to hear, a proper image review after a source review had already been conducted is a very worthy addition to this FAC!! --K. Peake 06:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that I had. Thanks Hawkeye7. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2021 (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/Kids_See_Ghosts_(album)/archive3&oldid=1031999707"