Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive3

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) 26 May 2021 [1].

---

Love for Sale (Bilal album)

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Please review my third nomination of this article, on an album of sentimental value to me, but not at the expense of more important things in your lives. Thank you 😌 isento (talk) 06:46, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per unresolved issues from the first nomination. Sources like Genius and The Shadow League fail the "high-quality" part of criterion 1(c). — Bilorv (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per unresolved issues from the second nomination, with particular reference to the sourcing. ——Serial 17:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
• I'm also unsure as to whether these requests ([2],[3],[4]) are the good-faith neutral notifications mandated by WP:CANVAS. ——Serial 17:27, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Also Special:Diff/1024814865, but I got one of these messages here for the second nomination and I didn't think it was canvassing. They're just requests to review (not to blindly support) and I'm guessing they're just picked out of people recently active at FAC. — Bilorv (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

In this case it was the tone of the messages, rather than to whom they were delivered, that raised eyebrows. ——Serial 09:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose due to concerns about the reliability of sources and unresolved issues from prior nominations. It does not look like the concerns raised by Ealdgyth were entirely addressed. I'm also appalled at the behavior of the nominator; they dismissed valid concerns as "controversial" and blamed Ealdgyth for "derailing" the first nom when they had a second nom earlier this month. I'm inclined to oppose this as there was nothing controversial about the SR in the first nom and all of those concerns should be addressed, as well as the numerous ones listed in a new SR below. Noah^Talk 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Hurricane Noah: It seems like the nominator has rage quit. Looking at his contributions, he has blanked his user and talk page after Bilorv's opposition. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Source review

Will take a look at this. First aspect will be source reliability and formatting. Hog Farm _Talk 16:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• What makes an anonymous piece from Soulhead high-quality RS
• What makes Beats, Boxing, and Mayhem high-quality RS? (the Abdusalaam, Ismael piece, presumably the interview is mostly fine as a primary source)
• What is John Simon Daily, and what makes it high-quality RS?
• Got some doubts about SoulBounce being high-quality RS
• Bamalovesoul appears to be a blog, does the author have any sort of credentials?
• It looks like Prefixmag has staff pieces and non-staff pieces, how well does that source vet the non-staff pieces?
• What makes New Black Man (in Exile) high-quality RS?
• "Chestnutt Hill Local" should only have one t, it looks like.
• The Shadow Tier appears to be a blog-level sports site, what makes it high-quality RS for music?

Once these get figured out, I'll do some spot checks for source-text integrity and copyright. Hog Farm _Talk 17:09, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• I am swiftly archiving this per the several well reasoned opposes above. The usual two week wait before a further nomination will apply. Can I recommend a visit to PR before renominating. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

• 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.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.