Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Saving Light/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 archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 April 2019 [1].

Saving Light

[edit]
Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 04:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2017 trance song "Saving Light" by English electronic music producers Gareth Emery and Standerwick. I believe that this article has sufficiently met the criteria for becoming a featured article. Although the article is quite short when compared to such articles as Stay High, I can assure you that Saving Light is "long enough" when compared to other short featured articles like MissingNo and can be defended by WP:VSFA. I have addressed all previous issues with the articles in the one good article nomination and the two featured article nominations. The following statement written below was originally from the first featured article nomination, though I have edited it to keep it up to date.

  1. Well written. During the articles good article review, first featured article review, and second featured article nomination, it was almost completely rewritten several times to make sure that the article is the best it could possibly be, making sure that everything has been supported by reliable and third-party reference and that the article was completely unbiased. The article had undergone a copy edit that I had requested from the Guild of Copy Editors where it is now very well written in my own opinion.
  2. Factually accurate, neutral and verifiable. The article currently has 28 references, all of which being proven to be reliable in the articles good article review. The article did contain some unreliable sources, though all of which had been removed during the good article review. The number of references may be considered quite low for a featured article or even a good article, though this is because it isn't a very well known song, being released by a relatively small indie record label. I have compiled a list of every reference source used in the article in my sandbox, listing why every site used is all good for use for a featured article, citing the website's staff, editorial team and publishing oversight.
  3. Stable. The article had received only a few edits since it's second article nomination, as there is really nothing more to add or fix. My last edit (as of writing this) was on the 25th of April, before which were a minor edit done on the 11th of March. There have only been 7 edits since the start of the year.
  4. Appropriate length. The article is of adequate length, being around 25,900 bytes in size and having 1,250 words (according to XTools). The article is not too long, containing only how much the article should have without it dragging on.

This article was previously nominated to become a good article, during which it was peer reviewed and passed the GA nomination. For your information, the article was categorised as a B-class after it's peer review. It was later nominated for the status for featured article twice, though it failed both nominations. The first FA nomination failed due to the lack of people commenting and supporting/opposing it. The second FA nomination had much more interaction with other people, with three supports and one opposed. Although the three supports were short, there was significantly more commentary in it's talk page. The oppose was based on the articles previous "critical reception" part, which wasn't very good and was later replaced by a substantially better part and is good enough for a FA. The current article has pretty much been 'finale', in which it is pretty much perfect and does not need any further editing due to the number of edits done during its peer review, GAN and both FANs. The article only has one fair use image, being the cover art for the original song and its use in the article is covered appropriately in the images file page. Micro (Talk) 04:30, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC

[edit]

Oppose

I see this went through a PR in 2018: I think it best if it went back through another one with 'non-dance music' people asked to help I the process. There are too many industry terms used without explanation or clarification, erratic naming and some more links needed (just for example)

Lead/IB
  • You have "Ian Standerwick" in the IB and "Standerwick" (on his first mention) in the lead
  • "Standerwick" is his stage name, while Ian Standerwick is his real name. Although confusing because Gareth Emery uses his real name as his stage name, I did this as other articles, like Habits, did this same thing.
  • "released 22 February 2017": -> "released on 22 February 2017"
  • Fixed.
Background
  • "Ian Standerwick and Gareth Emery": who? And why no for Emery link this time?
  • Not totally sure what you mean by this, but looking at the thing about the writers below, I added in "electronic music producers". If there is something better to place, let me know.
  • Done.
  • " they gave to Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra": who? You have Roxanne Emery linked in the IB, so why not here, and "Karra" appears to have a surname in the IB that isn't shown in the text.
  • added in "songwriters" to text.

Karra is her stage name, which for the same reasoning as Standerwick, I have left.

  • Done.
  • "The song debuted": new para, use the name, so ""Saving Light" debuted", then the second sentence becomes "The song was featured"
  • Done.
  • I have put in links to these two things, though I'm not a fan as it seems like over-linking.

That's as far as I got before thinking this was an oppose. It really needs a good peer review (from 'non-dance music' people, so I suggest you withdraw for now, have it reviewed and make sure it has a good polish before it comes back. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchroCat Thanks for the suggestions. I am not really on board to withdrawing to these kind of things and instead prefer to just do a "fix it on the way" kind of method. This way is pretty much quicker and easier than withdrawing and then waiting a month or three for A non-EDM person who is very good at peer reviewing to actually have a good look at my article. Hopefully you see what I mean and could go in further with suggestions/fixes (there weren't too many fixes with EDM people, likely not many more with a non-EDM person, like you I presume.) Micro (Talk) 23:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'a "fix it on the way" kind of method' isn't the way FAC is supposed to work. Things that come here should be almost ready for Featured status, not leaving the heavy editing work for reviewers to do. "quicker and easier" has no place here: if you want this article to be featured, you have to do the work for it. - SchroCat (talk) 06:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SchroCat Yea, I guess. Before this, I believed that the article was pretty much all good as most issues were fixed in the first and second featured article nominations, so I pretty much thought "yea, maybe like a few things need fixing". Main problem was that the only people who reviewed it were all EDM guys (I think?), didn't think about the general Wikipedia big boys who don't listen to electronic music. It's just 100x easier for me if instead recommending me to withdraw and request a peer review (which is a good idea, but painfully long process), instead someone, like you, could pretty much list every problem and query they have with the article. Shouldn't be too much, it did go through a peer review, a GAN, two FANs and a copy-edit. Plus most problems people had with it previously were fixed. Probably. Also, I am going to take your advice and withdraw. Don't know how to actually do that though. Once that is done, I'll submit it for another peer review, which is linked here if you want to see it. Micro (Talk) 07:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good. Ping me when it comes back to FAC and I'll have another look then. To withdraw, you just have to send the batsignal up to the @FAC coordinators: . Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:32, 30 April 2019 (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/Saving_Light/archive3&oldid=894942368"