Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Windswept Adan/archive1

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) 11 July 2024 [1].

Windswept Adan

[edit]
Nominator(s): joeyquism (talk page) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2018, Japanese folk musician Ichiko Aoba made a small splash in the international market with the album qp. Over the next two years, the ripples from that splash grew into waves, culminating in her mesmerizing 2020 album Windswept Adan, her first truly global release. Aoba's creativity is on full display on this record, which follows a narrative written by Aoba about a young girl exiled to a mystical island inhabited by bioluminescent "creatures". With its psychedelic-chamber folk instrumentation and beautiful vocal performances, Windswept Adan is an immersive experience and certainly an interesting listen. It's one of my favorite albums of the past 10 years and has a very endearing story behind its development, and I'm of the belief that its article meets FA standards. Thank you! joeyquism (talk page) 21:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • "during the production of "Choe,"" - shouldn't that comma be outside the quote marks?
    • Done
  • "The album's composition has been analogized to those of composers Erik Satie and Philip Glass" - I think maybe you need to say something like "The album's composition has been analogized to that of works by composers Erik Satie and Philip Glass", otherwise you are saying that the album's composition has been likened to the composition of literally Satie and Glass themselves
    • Done
  • "Mattox compared Aoba's singing on the track to "birdsong"." - not sure those quote marks are really needed when the quote is just a single word and it could simply be made a statement of fact
    • Done
  • That's all I got - great work and a very interesting read! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:47, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan620

[edit]

I reviewed the recent GAN for this article and found little of concern. The article is thorough, well-written, and engaging. The only remaining feedback I have is that the URL titles for each source should consistently be in either sentence case or title case; right now, the article uses a mixture of both. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 13:43, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again! I've put all the applicable references in title case; let me know if you find any other issues. joeyquism (talk page) 14:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise! I think we're good to go – support! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 14:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

[edit]
  • I am not sure a citation in the infobox is necessary for the single release date. That kind of information should be included and cited in the article.
    • Removed the citation.
  • For the lead's second paragraph, I would clarify in the prose who is describing the album with these genres (i.e. critics, fans, etc.). You could alternatively cut the "described" wording to say it is "a chamber folk and psychedelic folk album with elements of jazz, classical, and ambient music". I think the second option would be better.
    • Done.
  • Do you think any of her albums, such as Kamisori Otome or qp, would be notable enough to have red links?
    • Unfortunately, coverage of her earlier albums is sparse in both English and Japanese. Only Sputnikmusic has cared enough to review qp in English (there's also a review for Kamisori Otome, but it's made by a user and not a staff member), and I'm not sure that one English source is enough to warrant notability. If only there was more literature on her; I would have loved to create those articles.
  • Why did qp bring more international attention to Aoba? What about this particular album was unique? Some additional context may be useful here if possible.
    • I'm not sure how to expand upon this, seeing as most mentions of qp in the sources simply state that it was her breakthrough record and received international attention. If there's a particular thing you were thinking about with regards to how I could elaborate on this, please let me know.
      • If there is not further coverage on this, then the current wording is okay. I was only wondering what about qp caused international audiences and reviewers to pay attention to it and what was different about this particular album than her past ones. It just seemed like a bit of context is missing, but I understand if that information is simply not available. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (by "creatures" of an unspecified species), I am uncertain that "creatures" needs to be quoted. Is there a reason for this?
    • "Creatures" is how Aoba describes them in the Windswept Adan companion book. I suppose the quotations are there to clarify both that it is a quotation from the book and also the general descriptor for them, as opposed to "animals" which is a bit more specific and may not accurately reflect the text I'm referring to. For now, I think it would be okay to leave it as is, though if there is further justification as to why I shouldn't quote it, feel free to let me know. I can also provide pictures of the text if needed.
      • Pictures would not be necessary, but thank you for offering. I am still not fully convinced that the quotation marks are necessary for a single word, but I will leave this for other reviewers to decide as it is not a major point in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is saying these quotes ("tornado of fire" and "variety of living things.")? I'd avoid including quotes without clear attribution in the prose. Also, punctuation should be on the outside of the quotation marks unless you are citing a full sentence.
    • I've removed the quotes for now. I would have thought that something like "which Aoba describes as a 'tornado of fire'" would work somewhat, but it read a bit awkwardly when I previewed it.
  • The first sentence of the "Production" subsection is a bit of a run-on with two "with ..." clauses nestled in each other. I think it would be better to make on their prior collaboration for "Amuletum" into a separate sentence.
    • Adjusted.
  • I have a comment for this part, (with early arrangements for the track "Pilgrimage" being written during Aoba's first trip to Okinawa). I would avoid the "with X verb-ing" sentence construction as that is a common critique for FACs.
    • Broke the sentence into two.
  • I am uncertain about this part, (noted the production process as unconventionally collaborative). I would clarify in the prose that this is Aoba's opinion as there are plenty of cases where the production process is very collaborative.
    • Changed to "Aoba compared the production process to working on a ship".
  • I would spell out the EP acronym as extended play to help readers who may be unfamiliar with this type of music jargon. If the acronym is used later on in the article, then I would introduce it as a parenthetical here, i.e. extended play (EP).
    • Done.
  • Wouldn't the "Cover art" sub-section be a better fit for the "Release and promotion" section? I normally associate album art with promotion rather than the development of the actual album.
    • Moved to the end of the release section. I thought it seemed a bit out of place there; would this be better off on its own (e.g. a "Packaging" section)?
      • I do not think there is enough information to support a separate section. I would move this information before the "International vinyl release and tour" subsection to avoid presenting information out of chronological order (i.e. talking about the later international release and then going back to the album cover). The reason I suggested this was because the album cover really did not have anything to do with the development of the album and in my opinion has far more to do with the release and marketing. This kind of thing has been done for articles like Mata (album). It may be better to incorporate it into the "Release and promotion" section. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. joeyquism (talk page) 19:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure of the rationale for File:Parfum d'étoiles.ogg. I do understand it is being used to illustrate the Erik Satie comparisons that were made for the album as a whole, but I question how useful this would be for readers who never heard anything by Satie. I think audio samples are very helpful for album article, but I am uncertain about the rationale here. It may be best to wait for other reviewers to look at this, but since I thought about it, I wanted to raise it to your attention.
    • I understand your concern here, and I do agree that it would be unhelpful to those who are unfamiliar with Satie's work. I'd still like to include the sound bite, though; perhaps a general description of the audio would suffice? Maybe something to do with the prepared piano performance? I can move the felt covering part that appears in the development section to the composition section if needed. Let me know what you think.
      • I do not think changing the rationale to something about the prepared piano would be a good idea as that is more about the song and not about the album. By that I mean, it does not appear that the felt covering or the prepared piano performance have been discussed outside of this one song, but please let me know if I have missed something. The audio sample should focus on something that is representative of the album as a whole. I could just be overly nitpick-y on this part. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I feel that there is some merit in including this sound bite, as it is representative of the style and composition of the album, after all. I've edited the blurb beneath it to include information about its inclusion of vocalizations and field recordings, both of which have been featured in other tracks on the album and are mentioned in other paragraphs in the same section. I should also note that the articles for Loveless, Kids See Ghosts, and the recently-listed Worlds feature sound bites with descriptions of the songs themselves, rather than within the context of the album as a whole. I don't feel as if you're being nitpick-y; this is valid criticism and I'd rather address it properly than blow it off. joeyquism (talk page) 19:08, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response and links to the FAs. I slightly disagree with the Worlds example as the caption does explain how the sample is representative of the album. This is likely a matter of personal preference. I will not hold up my review based on this. It is likely best to wait and see what other reviewers have to say. I agree that the audio sample is overall beneficial. I prefer something that more explicitly says how a song is representative of the album; for instance, the Beats Per Minute review talks about “Parfum d’étoiles” as one of the album's "simplistic piano ballads" which help to maintain its "hostly and serene" tone. But, I recognize this is just my point of view so I would be okay with the audio caption staying the same. Aoba47 (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted. If other reviewers comment on this, I will refer to your comments and use them to guide my revisions on the audio description. Thank you for the link to the Beats Per Minute review! joeyquism (talk page) 19:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure exactly what this part means, (her portrait on the single's cover artwork as proof). The "portrait" word choice in particular sounds odd. The citation says that she "put herself on the album cover", and that is clearer to me. I would instead say something about she included herself on the cover. The word "portrait" makes me think of portrait painting.
    • Removed the mention of the cover. I thought it sounded a bit awkward while writing it, too.
      • I think this information is relevant so I would include it. It does add further context to why the source views it as an appeal to global audiences. It just needs to be worded more clearly. Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added it back in with a revised wording. Personally, I'm still a bit iffy on the wording, but if it looks good I won't prune any further. joeyquism (talk page) 19:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the track listing, would it be helpful to have a note that Tracks 4, 7, 19, 14 are known just by their Japanese titles. I was initially confused when looking at this section as I was unsure if it these translations were part of the title for all releases.
    • Done.
  • For the citation titles, make sure to italicize album titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
    • Done.
  • The citations that are in Japanese should have their titles translated to English. I would use the trans-title= parameter for this.
    • Done (hopefully all of them have been covered).
  • Citation 33 includes Fantano 2020, but it does not lead to anything. Going off this, I do not think Anthony Fantano's YouTube channel is considered an appropriate source for a FA as it is a WP:SPS. I think the same applies for The Needle Drop. There has been discussions on WP:RSN about him (including this one) and unfortunately, I do not think there is enough of a consensus to support including him. I think these citations would need to be removed.
    • Fixed citation 33. Normally, I wouldn't include a Fantano mention in an article (I didn't do it when rewriting Leak 04-13 (Bait Ones)), but I think his inclusion is justified by the fact that Fantano was one of the first prominent English-language music critics to notice both this record and Aoba in general, seeing as much of the previous Western attention came from one very dedicated reviewer on Sputnikmusic and Beats Per Minute, the latter of which hadn't even reviewed Aoba's work until the release of "Porcelain". Additionally, I tried to refrain from using him as a source on biographical details, and only cited his opinions on the album. I definitely think there are some good points made on both sides in the RSN link you provided; however, I'd like to get more consensus on this before I remove Fantano from the article entirely, and I am open to more discussion about it with you.
      • I will leave that up to other reviewers, specifically whoever does the source review. In my opinion, Fantano is a clear example of WP:SPS and should be avoided for a FA. The fact that Fantano was one of the first prominent English-language music critics to discuss this album and this artist does not make him a reliable or high-quality source. Sources are not considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards just because they are the first to discuss something. Self-published sources such as blogs are typically avoided even for reviews. Again, that is just my opinion though, and it is always best to get as many opinions as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given your justification, I've decided that I'm going to remove him from the article. While I enjoy his reviews and do believe that at some point his reviews should be treated with the same regard as those of Robert Christgau, I agree with your point that his inclusion is not entirely warranted by his attention and therefore should not be considered reliable solely based on this. I'll get to removing his citations after I reply to your last comment. Thank you for your insight on this! joeyquism (talk page) 19:16, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just an idea, but you could try to justify Fantano's inclusion by providing evidence that he is a respected and noteworthy critic (i.e. links in respected music websites about him, etc.). I am not saying that it would necessarily work, but if you would like to keep his sources, I think that would be a better argument. The difference with Robert Christgau is that he worked as a music journalist for various reliable sources. You could also try asking other editors about this who specialize in music. Just to be clear, I can relate to this as I have run into annoying issues with sources and whether or not they are appropriate for a FA or Wikipedia in general. It is a learning process for sure, and I am still very much learning myself. Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have an uneasy feeling that future reviewers may also be reluctant to the inclusion of Fantano's reviews on the article; Fantano's reliability has been discussed ad nauseam on the wiki, and I would rather avoid providing fuel for potential arguments (the discussion you linked contained particularly charged remarks from some users). Nevertheless, I have saved the references and prose in a note in case of a suggestion that it be added back. I may also bring it up in the Wikimedia Discord server for quick perspectives, but for now, I am comfortable with excluding him per your comments. joeyquism (talk page) 20:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article. I have honestly never heard of this artist or this album, but I knew that I had to review this FAC as it does involve part of my username. I just wish my Japanese was not so rusty. I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to make sure I have not missed anything. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. I hope you are having a great end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Aoba47: Glad to hear you enjoyed reading the article! Hopefully I've thoroughly addressed all of your concerns above, and I would love to hear back about your thoughts on some of the things I may have contested. Hope you're having a great weekend as well! joeyquism (talk page) 17:54, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Generalissima

[edit]
  • File:Windswept Adan cover.jpeg Fair use image, typical use-case here as an album cover.
  • File:Pandanus tectorius.jpg - Various CC licenses. I right-aligned this, as it could cause sandwiching issues on wider monitors in this position.
  • File:Bolivian charango 001.jpg - Released into PD.
  • File:Ichiko Aoba UK - 3 September 2022 (cropped).jpg - CC-BY.
  • All images have good alt-text and seem relevant to the article.

Support on image review. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 20:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chart history (IanTEB)

This article is really great. While I haven't done a thorough enough deep dive to provide any comments about what's already included, I think there ought to be a mention of the album's chart history. It made a single appearance at 85 on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums and made two appearances on the Top Album Sales chart with a peak at 43 (the latter can probably be omitted for being a component chart). On the Oricon Albums Chart, it charted two weeks upon release and peaked at 88; it later resurfaced half a year later in July 2021 with a new peak at 63. Oricon in total accounted for 1,386 sales. This is not too much information and can probably be worked into the reception section. IanTEB (talk) 12:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness; thank you for notifying me of this. I can't believe that I overlooked this information, and will add it promptly. As for the Oricon data, is there a specific link that you obtained this information from? Oricon's ranking data past the top 50 albums seems to be paywalled entirely, and I don't have a Japanese address that would allow me to purchase it (that being said, I would be incredibly annoyed if I had to do so). If there's a reliable (and preferably free) source that exists out there for this information, please let me know. Thank you again for the help! joeyquism (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

[edit]
  • While probably pedantic, I prefer to say an album was released "by" a label and not "through" it, if you want to take a suggestion.
    • Done. I feel that this reads better, too.
  • Do you think the album title for qp should be lowercased? Stylizations generally aren't used in wiki text aside from one mention
    • I've gone ahead and capitalized "Q" in the title for each instance. It does seem that most references to Qp in the literature are written in lowercase, but I'd say a regular title case stylization for this article is fine with me.
  • I like the quote in the Production section but couldn't it just be part of the prose after the colon instead of a blockquote?
    • MOS:BLOCKQUOTE states that for quotes that are "more than about forty words or a few hundred characters", one should format them as block quotations; this one is 44 words long by my count. I've left this as is, but if you still don't find it suitable, feel free to let me know!
  • The title used in ref 62 is "Windswept Adan on Billboard Japan Hot Albums", even though the link seems to go to the full chart. I think "Billboard Japan Hot Albums" would be a more appropriate ref title, considering.
    • I've reduced the titles for both references to Billboard Japan charts.
  • That's all from me. Really enjoyed this article!--NØ 16:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this article for promotion. You did a really great job with this!--NØ 18:09, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much! joeyquism (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source check and comments (IanTEB)

[edit]

I've been requested to do a spot check of the Japanese sources in here particularly. I'll also give some miscellaneous comments if I find anything.

  • [4]: The source technically does not say that "Amuletum" and "Bouquet" were released as two singles; they were issued on one double A-side titled "Amuletum Bouquet". The article isn't incorrect since single can have two interpretations: a song promoted as a single (which would apply to both songs), or the release itself. Since the Natalie source (and Japanese music reporting in general) seems to favor the release definition, "in conjunction with the release of the songs 'Amuletum' and 'Bouquet' as a joint single" / "double A-side single" could be more accurate. Very minor thing.
  • [a]: Not a spotcheck, but I would incorporate footnote directly into the prose since the connection between the title and Pandanus tectorius is hard to grasp without it and not everyone would check footnotes. This is just a personal preference, though, feel free to ignore.
  • I was also thinking about this earlier; however, this seems extraneous enough to where it could be left out of the prose and put inside a footnote. I think that a random link to a Japan Tourism Agency article would be a bit out of place here. I may change my mind later, but for now I've left this as is. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the English version is more pertinent here, as the article is for an English language audience; however, if there's a way to link a non-English edition in a source, I'll add it. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [5] (second use): verified
  • [7]: verified. Though, Masato Matsumura should be credited as interviewer on the Cinra source.
  • [8]: mostly good but does she specifically specify going to the islands to write? The sentence would be understood the same if those two words are cut, so I hope it's not a big deal.
  • [10]: verified, against Japanese edition as well
  • [16]: verified, assuming good faith on liner notes unless you have a link you can send
  • I've included all the liner notes and the pages of the book that I used on this Google doc - let me know if you have trouble accessing it.
  • "the single" can be removed before "Amuletum" in Production since it has already been introduced in Background
  • [17]: verified. Ototoy should be changed to lowercase per English capitalization rules, though.
  • [18]: verified
  • [18] (second use): verified
  • [19]: verified
  • [21]: verified; again assuming good faith on liner notes
  • [22]: verified
  • [23]: verified
  • [18] (third use): verified
  • [22] (second use): verified
  • [22] (third use): verified. The description of the charango is not fully included, but simple descriptions have leeway. It could maybe be shortened to "a lute family instrument traditionally used in South America"
  • [22] (fourth use): verified
  • [24]: verified
  • [26]: verified, but add subscription notice to the Financial Times cite
  • Is the Japanese title to Ai Ga Nakucha Ne necessary for this article?
  • I figured I'd be consistent with the Japanese title translations regardless of who made the work. I can see how this can be distracting, though. Feel free to let me know what you think and I will prune if needed. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [39]: verified
  • [40]: most of this seems to rely on the Financial Times article, which I cannot access
  • Shouldn't Uncut be in italic?
  • [47]: verified
  • [49]: verified
  • [51]: verified
  • [52]: verified
  • Since all other song titles are translated, you could add "(Tagalog for 'repeated whipping') after "Hagupit" per the already cited Cinra interview.
  • [54]: verified
  • [55]: verified
  • [56]: verified except for abrupt shifts, which I presume is from the the Financial Times?
  • [22] (fifth use): verified
  • [59]: verified
  • [61]: verified, but shouldn't the Bandcamp title be "Windswept Adan on Bandcamp" for consistency with the Apple Music source?
  • "Aoba's personal record label" could be removed before Hermine since the label was already introduced in Background
  • I think another reference to it being hers is warranted given how far away the background section is from the release section, but I've removed "personal" as it seemed to be fluff. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [62]: mostly good, but it did not stay for the following two weeks on Oricon; it stayed for two total counting week one, so it should be "where it remained for two weeks".
  • Should there not be an "a" before livestream?
  • [63]: verified
  • [64]: since this article was published before the event was held, it can not be used to state that the exhibition was held. This is an easy fix; you can add "Aoba announced an exhibition featuring [...] to be held from 4 December to 27 December 2020".
  • [65]: same comment as above; just add "She announced another livestream performance"
  • [66]: Verified, but I would also specify "self-cover", or better yet change it to "re-recorded acoustic versions of" (the acoustic part needs to be implemented since it's in the lead). Also, I understand it is more of an EP, but the single title should probably be in quotations rather than italics.
  • [67]: verified, but I would change 音楽ナタリー to Natalie or Natalie.mu, if you want to specify its their music publication
  • [68]: verified
  • [c]: I would remove this footnote since the sources do not contradict each other: Oricon is reporting the lifetime sales count, whereas Billboard is only reporting the sales from that chart week
  • [69]: verified
  • [8] (second use): verified
  • [70]: verified
  • [71]: verified, but Brutus should be in lowercase
  • [72]: verified
  • United Kingdom is in Europe. Granted the source also makes this mistake, but I think it is still best to correct (unless its talking about the EU, in which case that should be clarified)
  • [73]: verified
  • I would remove the italics to Roots per my comment on [66]
  • The "All songs on the Roots edition are covers performed by Aoba" text above the track listing for Roots can be removed since this should be in the prose instead
  • From what I've seen, points like these are reiterated in the track listing area, regardless of if they appear in the prose or not. I will leave this be for now, but I will remove if other reviewers note that it is not relevant. joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [69] (second use): verified
  • [89]: verified
  • [90]: verified
  • [91]: verified
  • [92]: verified
  • [91] (second use): verified

For reliability, I've used Tokion, Cinra, and Mikiki, which I consider all of good quality. I've gotten Cinra and Mikiki past my own GAs and they have shared authors with other reliable sources such as Real Sound. Natalie has been vetted reliable by the animanga WikiProject. I've never used Brutus, Ototoy, or An An, but these are primary interviews so I see no problem regardless.

In most of the cases where a citation contains both Japanese and Enligh sources, I've checked all. Citations that I did not check (listed for the convenience of future reviewers): [1], [2], [3], [6], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [20], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [41], [42], [43], [45], [46], [48], [50], [53], [57], [58], [60], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81], [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [93], [94].

Overall, really good! IanTEB (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the comprehensive source review, IanTEB! I've addressed your comments above; feel free to let me know if I need to edit further. Hope you're having a great day! joeyquism (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! My point about the Japanese Tokion article was just that I verfied the accuracy of the Enlgish translation; regardless, I'd encourage wikilinking Tokion on the source. As an additional point, I would capitalize "Gift" in the Aoba chronology and remove the Japanese title in the infobox since I'm unsure if it is standard (you could add Template:Infobox Japanese if you want to keep it in some way, but my opinion is that it looks cluttered without too much use for the reader). Other than that, I'll support in regards to the areas I've checked. IanTEB (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much IanTEB! Regarding your point on Tokion - I think that the one that has an article is not the same as what I'm referring to in the text; they have different publishers and no mention of its past on the website other than a vague "Tokion was relaunched on July 28...", so I'm apprehensive about linking it here. As for your last point, I've capitalized "Gift" and removed the Japanese title for now. Thank you again, and if there's any review you'd like me to do for you in return (I understand that a source review is a lot to ask of someone), I'd be glad to give it a spin! Just leave a comment on my talk page and I'll take a look. joeyquism (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few GAs up, but I would be most grateful if you could review Draft:Same Thing (EP) when I move and eventually nominate it. Good luck with the rest of the FA! IanTEB (talk) 20:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • Same logic as above. I initially had this wikilinked in the prose, but someone ran a regex script on the page that removes commonly linked articles. Additionally, "single" is linked in the infobox. joeyquism (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, but we link the first usage in the lede and in the body regardless of tables and templates. Whilst the word "single" is simple, it has a different meaning to a single thing. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

When quoting a complete sentence, it is usually recommended to keep the first word capitalized. However, if the quoted passage has been integrated into the surrounding sentence (for example, with an introduction such as "X said that"), the original capital letter may be lower-cased.

However, if you have any further thoughts on this, please let me know.
it doesn't seem to end in a full stop, so it can't be a full sentence in that respect. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. joeyquism (talk) 15:35, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

[edit]

Not much to add on here as the reviews before mine has polished the article really well. Just some very minor comments.

  • David Honigmann of Financial Times deemed it a -- David Honigmann of the Financial Times deemed it a
  • Other artists whose work has been compared to Windswept Adan -- whose work have been compared
  • In the Release History table, I would match the abbreviated form as "Refs" since it is spelled as "References" in full. Or simply "Reference" as it only used one citation is used per row.
  • That's all I have. Great work here. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pseud 14! Thank you for your review. I believe I've addressed everything you mentioned above; feel free to let me know of any further comments that you may have. joeyquism (talk) 20:18, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elias

[edit]

for your review on GiTM I feel honor-bound to review your stuff back 8) as always i lay the caveat you don't have to agree to every suggestion, within reason . if you also have time I have another FAC at Shirt (song) that could use an additional perspective. PSA 🏕️🪐 (please make some noise...) 02:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Most of my comments will be about concision, so here are some phrases to trim:
    • "in conjunction with the release of two songs titled" (I would trim to "alongside the release of two songs, 'Song 1' and 'Song 2'")
    • "by both Aoba"
    • "Recording sessions for the album"
    • "production process"
      • I think there is a distinction between "production process" and just "production" - when I think of the latter, I think of production style rather than the development of an album. Let me know what you think about this, along with other comments I may contest.
    • "for accompaniment on the album"
      • Between the two, I would opt to leave "on the album" in the sentence, as just "for accompaniment" reads a bit to me like they were asking for companionship in general? joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the demos would then shape"
      • I also feel as if this reads awkwardly without "then". While writing this sentence, I also contemplated the inclusion of this word specifically, but ultimately decided to leave it in, as I feel that it adds an element of linearity (i.e. there's a timeline there - Umebayashi made demos, then Aoba wrote based on those demos. I'm not sure if I'm elaborating on this clearly, so feel free to pick my mind further on this). joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Umebayashi stated that he sought"
    • "suited both Aoba's vocals" and other instances of the word "both", but which ones you'll keep and which ones you'll remove, I leave it to your discretion
    • "such as her 2018 album Qp" (you already introduce Qp beforehand)
    • "the landscape of the island of Adan" (try "the Adan landscape")
    • "considered it to be her"
      • I feel as if the inclusion of "to be" adds to the formality of the text, akin to something like "Critic considered it to be Artist's magnum opus" versus "Critic considered it Artist's magnum opus". joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in her native Japan" is not exactly hitting my ear the right way.. can we find a way 2 rephrase?
  • "Aoba began drawing attention" - "receiving" seems like the more appropriate word
    • I've kept it as is for now. While I understand (and share) your concerns about WP:ELEVAR as noted later on, I've found that synonyms, when used correctly, can make text more engaging and more adherent to 1a of the FA criteria. Also, "received" is used later on in the paragraph in a different context; I wouldn't want readers to quickly have to contextualize the word differently in adjacent sentences. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Windswept Adan was first conceptualized by Aoba" make this active voice. A lot of phrases here can actually be turned into active voice
    • Done. I personally struggle a lot with quickly distinguishing between active and passive voice, so if there are any other phrases in here that alert you, please let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ephiphany" obvious
    • This is how she describes it in the Hashimoto/Tokion source. I am of the belief that this is a valid description rather than synthesis - unless you mean that it is obvious that she had an epiphany, in which case I would agree. I'll revise based on a further clarification. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The narrative follows a young girl with prophetic powers from a village of inbred families on the fictional remote island of Kirinaki who is exiled by her family to the island Adan to preserve her bloodline while preventing her from participating in intermarriage" i think this is a nitpick, but there are zero pauses in the sentence. Can we can make this more readable
    • Yeah, I had trouble with this sentence too. I've added a comma there just to break it up, as the alternative "The narrative follows a young girl ... on the fictional remote island of Kirinaki. She is exiled by her family to the island of Adan to preserve her bloodline and prevent her from participating in intermarriage" is rather choppy. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which had been characterized by its minimalist guitar and vocal arrangements" by whomst ?
    • These are characterizations made by reviewers of Windswept Adan only; there is only one review of Qp by a reliable English source, and no reliable reviews exist for works made earlier than 2018 (as far as I know - either way, I didn't really research that because it wasn't wholly relevant to the subject matter of the article at hand). I don't feel that it would be appropriate to include "characterized by reviewers" or "by critics", because this would likely require further explanation that these reviewers did not review Qp or Aoba's earlier work, but rather retrospectively noted this in their reviews of Windswept Adan. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Film" is preferred to "movie", which has a more casual feel
    • Done. However, I did mark this article as being written in American English, where "movie" is the common term and is considered proper, so I may change it back later on. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "waves crashing" -> "crashing waves" ?
  • "Track" is used in several consecutive sentences in the Songs section; should be breezy enough to rephrase
  • To avoid MOS:EASTEREGG, link "the flower" with the definite article, instead of simply the word "flower"
  • I don't think links to Cover art and Nude swimming are needed
  • The use of verbs on the critical reception section is giving WP:ELEVAR; using "write/wrote/writing" and "said/saying/say" more is alright
    • I understand your concern here, though I am a bit uneasy when it comes to using these words. From my understanding, WP:ELEVAR is more about using undue antecedents and labels that obscure the reader's understanding, such as in the example listed in the essay:

Have One on Me is the third studio album by American singer-songwriter Joanna Newsom, released on February 23, 2010 via Drag City as the official follow-up to the harpist's highly acclaimed second studio release, 2006's Ys.

To those familiar with Joanna Newsom, "the harpist" is an obvious placeholder for Newsom; however, to an uninformed reader, the inclusion of this label is unclear. I am not sure that ELEVAR applies here, as there doesn't seem to be any instance of a synonym for "said with praise" that detracts from the clarity of the passage (at least to me - let me know how you feel about this). Note that this isn't an excuse for me to not work on this further; I just feel that replacing these words with "wrote" and "said" would dull down the section a bit. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently I am unsure about how the section is structured. Right now, it's written by individually listing a handpicked selection of comments made by reviewers, without that much cohesion. I recommend reading WP:RECEPTION, which says, among others, to synthesize common themes that arise from the reviews.
    • I will admit that I did notice this as well and have also read the essay you mentioned here before, though I feel as if there is little in common between most critics' reviews other than the general period of time that they decided to review the work, which I feel takes precedence here. For example, I do recognize that critics like McMullen and Mackay had explicitly praised Aoba's worldbuilding skills, but I'm disinclined to group them together primarily because of the time gap. I also recognize that Thompson, Marston, and Cowan all praised the instrumentation on the album, but I feel like grouping them outside of their current paragraph, which currently groups them as "the later reviews", would be a bit awkward. In other words, I think that maintaining a chronological order is more pertinent here. If only all of the critics had dropped their reviews at around the same time; then I would be more adamant about grouping reviews by what they touch on rather than when their writers made them. Perhaps I'm also just inexperienced in writing reception sections (the reviews for Leak 04-13 (Bait Ones) were stratified across a decade and had little in common as well), but if you have any specific pointers, please let me know. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PSA, I've since addressed your comments regarding the reception section. joeyquism (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pushed back a lot more on this review in contrast to those of other commenters, so I apologize if I came off as belligerent or stand-offish here; that was not my intention. Of course, since I've contested many of your points, I would like to hear your thoughts on my responses. Thank you for a most thorough review, PSA; I think this kind of criticism is what this article needed. I'll take a look at Shirt over the next few days. joeyquism (talk) 03:46, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PSA, is there more to come on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, I believe that I've addressed most of the issues laid out by PSA, including the reception section that Heartfox also mentioned below; if you have the time to take a look for yourself, an evaluation would be much appreciated, though of course I do not wish to hold you to it against your will. joeyquism (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I may yet do, :-) , but I am here wearing my coordinator hat, wondering what PSA and Heartfox thought of your edits and comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Gog - hope you're doing well! Just writing again to check how you feel about the current status of this nomination looking good to go or not; PSA indicated here that they're currently busy with work training, and while I do not wish to speak on their behalf, I am not really sure as to when they'll be able to respond and I've probably bothered them to death about it off and on-wiki. I apologize if I'm being a bit too insistent here; I'm going to offer the excuse that my judgment is definitely a little off due to a lack of sleep from recent traveling. If this query/reply is inappropriate, of course let me know if I should strike it here. joeyquism (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

[edit]

I agree with PSA that the critical reception section is lacking. I don't see why a 2020 release and a 2021 international release (less than a year apart) are so different that it justifies forgoing thematic structure in favour of chronological structure, which is much less helpful to readers. Even a domestic reception vs. international reception could be more justified and engaging, but it doesn't seem like that would be possible here. The track listing is the same; it's the same album? Normally there would be separate paragraphs if there was like a 1990 release vs a 2010 reissue. Also, all but one of the reviews contains a quotation which doesn't align with MOS:QUOTE "Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style". Unfortunately I oppose per WP:FACR 1a as this section does not feel as engaging as it could be. Heartfox (talk) 03:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed nearly every quote and rearranged. Let me know if this is to your liking or not. joeyquism (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I came off as irritated or blunt with this reply; I haven't been in the best headspace recently (see my user page) and I will admit that I was a bit dismayed and rather upset after reading your comment. Your criticisms are, of course, valid, and I cannot justify any discourtesy against you for expressing your thoughts. Still, I will reassert my hope that I've addressed your concerns adequately, and I patiently await for your response. Hoping to get a strike through your oppose here at some point before the tentative three-week checking period comes around. joeyquism (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this section works much better now. Some stuff remains in WP:WIKIVOICE. For example, "applauded Windswept Adan for its cohesion and polished sound" implies that the album is cohesive and polished, but this is an opinion. There are also some MOS:SAID discrepancies, such as the use of "observed" and "noted" in describing opinions. Heartfox (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing this out, Heartfox. I've since revised "applauded Windswept Adan for its cohesion and polished sound" to "applauded the production on Windswept Adan as cohesive and polished", and replaced the "observed" and "noted" quotes with "wrote that on the album, Aoba had embraced a wide range of sounds..." and "John Lewis said that on Windswept Adan...", respectively. Let me know if this works for you, or if I should edit further. joeyquism (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, Heartfox (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Heartfox, is there likely to be more to come from you on this nomination? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comments were resolved. Heartfox (talk) 21:43, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Windswept_Adan/archive1&oldid=1233884726"