Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 18 July 2024 [1].

Virtual Self (EP)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 01:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of one of his albums that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 01:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (LunaEclipse)

Will be reviewing this. (Quid pro quo) lunaeclipse ^(talk) 23:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of the inclusion of a Forbes contributor article here. FAC is the kind of place where high quality sources are more expected. Can you replace it with another source?
- This article includes an interview with Robinson and I'm exclusively using his words here; WP:ABOUTSELF should apply. Skyshiftertalk 18:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a review at Sputnikmusic you forgot to include in the Reception section.
- Indeed I haven't seen this review, but I don't think Sputnikmusic is high-quality enough for an FA. There was some discussion a while ago about how anyone could become a staff member there. Skyshiftertalk 18:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No issues with ref formatting. Support on source review. lunaeclipse ^(talk) 22:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lunaeclipse ^(talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

ABOUTSELF doesn't apply as the source is published by FORBESCON not Robinson
- Still, I think that's fine as an interview. I am exclusively using Robinson's words and it gives relevant context. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"released on November 29, 2017, through an eponymous record label." → this could be a separate sentence
- Done Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"an idea Robinson became "obsessed" with.[1][2][3]" → why are there three refs for 1 quote? Also I don't really see why "obsessed" is such a useful quotation that it can't be paraphrased or omitted from the lead
- Paraphrased. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"and he does not play songs from both in the same shows." → this feels like something for the Porter Robinson article
- Removed Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"with the latter being " → the latter was
- Done Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the background section has two consecutive sentences that start with "In [year]" and three consecutive with "He".
- Fixed Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"had set" → set
- Fixed Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"He claims" "However", identified → WP:WTW
- Fixed Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"that he could not release under his own name" → "using a pseydonym"
- Done Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he started planning the Virtual Self project" → It's still not really clear what the "Virtual Self project" is.
- Changed project → alias in multiple instances. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inspiration section feels overly long
- I don't think there's much that can be removed here. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the runtimes obtained from?
- For the Track listing? Usually, that doesn't need references. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not use the music ratings template to display only one review as this seems a little undue weight. There should be at least a minimum of 2 reviews in the table.
- I don't see how this is undue weight. The album only received one rating (apart from the Sputnikmusic one which I don't think is considered high-quality for an FA), so only one rating is included. If the album had received two ratings, there would be two in the table, and no table if zero ratings. This seems fine. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some paragraphs are missing introductory sentences
- I don't understand this suggestion. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are 9 quotes vs. 3 sources in the first paragraph of the critical reception section. Stuff like "it's just a shame some of the tracks don't quite hit the mark for our money" could be easily paraphrased.
- Paraphrased Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calvin Harris is not a music critic and doesn't belong in a critical reception section
- Critical reception → Reception and legacy, as this section doesn't include just critical reception indeed. Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly two sentences and a two-row table that repeats the sentences isn't worthy of its own section. I would add the sentences as a paragraph in the promotion and release section.
- Done Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to these examples overall the article suffers from WP:OVERQUOTE and sometimes informal/unengaging prose. I'm just bombarded with so much info in the inspiration section I don't know what to focus on. There needs to be less quotation so it can be more understandable. Oppose per WP:FACR 1a. Sorry, Heartfox (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Responded! Skyshiftertalk 16:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Heartfox: I believe everything has been addressed. Just pinging to see if you think the article has any other issues. Skyshiftertalk 22:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment. This has been open for three weeks now and with one valid oppose, I see no consensus towards promotion forming anytime soon so I'll be archiving this. The usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2024 (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. FrB.TG (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Okay, that was unexpected. Is this really common procedure? This FAC has a source review pass and the oppose has been entirely responded to and addressed. Am I really going to be at a loss here just because Heartfox didn't see my response in time (and they're not forced to, obviously)? Couldn't I at least have been warned that the FAC was about to get archived so I could try to get more reviews on this or ping Heartfox again? I really don't get this sudden archival. Skyshiftertalk 22:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, another FAC of mine, I'm God, was at a similar situation, with an oppose (also addressed) and no supports after three weeks, and after a warning, I pinged the participants again and also managed to get more reviews. In the end, the article was promoted. I could've perfectly have done the same for this FAC. This sudden archival is really sad because I've addressed both LunaEclipse's and Heartfox's comments on the same day (2 and 5 July respectively), so I was (and am) completely commited to this FAC. Skyshiftertalk 22:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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