Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Windswept Adan/archive1

TFA blurb

Aoba

Windswept Adan is the seventh studio album by Japanese singer-songwriter Ichiko Aoba, released on 2 December 2020 by her label, Hermine. The concept album follows the story of a young girl who is sent away by her family to the fictional island of Adan. Aoba and composer Taro Umebayashi wrote, composed, arranged, and produced the music for the album, which was preceded by one single, "Porcelain". Windswept Adan is a chamber folk and psychedelic folk album with elements of jazz, classical, and ambient music. Marking a departure from Aoba's earlier minimalist instrumentation, it includes a celesta, wind chimes, string arrangements, and vocal performances. The album received widespread critical acclaim for its arrangements, instrumentation, and worldbuilding. Upon its release, the album debuted at number 82 on the Billboard Japan Hot Albums chart and number 88 on the Oricon Albums Chart. Aoba supported the album with her first international tour between August and October 2022. (Full article...)

Edits and comments are welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank - thank you for the wonderful blurb. I had actually written one not too long ago in one of my sandboxes; feel free to take a look:

Windswept Adan is the seventh studio album by Japanese singer-songwriter Ichiko Aoba, released on 2 December 2020 by her label, Hermine. Conceived as a soundtrack for an imaginary film, the concept album follows the story of a young girl who is sent away to the fictional island of Adan, and was written, composed, arranged, and produced by Aoba and composer Taro Umebayashi. The album blends chamber folk and psychedelic folk with elements of jazz, classical, and ambient music, marking a shift from Aoba's earlier minimalist style. The album was preceded by one single, "Porcelain", which was released on 30 October 2020. Windswept Adan received widespread acclaim from critics, who praised its arrangements, instrumentation, and worldbuilding. To support the album globally, Aoba embarked on her first international tour, performing in the United Kingdom, Europe, and North America between August and October 2022. (Full article...)

I used File:Ichiko Aoba UK - 3 September 2022 (cropped).jpg as the TFA image, as it's of Aoba performing on the supplementary tour. joeyquism (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At a second glance, I think I like yours better, Dank. My only suggestion would be to use the tour performance photo, though I'm not married to this idea. The image you've used is of much better quality. I should also ask: Has this already been penciled in for running as TFA sometime soon? I'd like to get it on December 2, although if anything precludes that from happening, I'd like to know as a heads up joeyquism (talk) 23:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wehwalt will be scheduling this month ... when we get a little closer to December, if he hasn't already seen this page and responded, then ping him. Glad you like the blurb. I'm happy with either image. - Dank (push to talk) 00:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to FAC

Hi joeyquism and thank you for your nomination to FAC. A few pointers on the process and how to get the best from it:

What to expect

As a first time nominator at FAC, the nominated article will need to pass a source-to-text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing in addition to all of the usual requirements.
You should be aware that every aspect of the article will be rigorously examined, including the standard of prose; breadth, standard and formatting of sources; image licencing; and adherence to the Manual of Style.

Dealing with reviewers

Try to deal with comments in a timely and constructive fashion.
Remember that reviewers are constructively giving their opinion on the article.
Keep calm when dealing with criticism of any aspect of the article.
Don't take the criticism personally: reviewers are examining the article – not you!

How to get the best from the process

Reviewing the work of others is a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side.
Reviewing other FACs also increases the likelihood that others will review your nomination – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC.

Good luck with your nomination.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Gog the Mild, thank you for the welcoming words! This ping initially gave me a scare; I thought I'd done something wrong on the nomination itself and that the archive containing the comments had been wiped. Glad to see that isn't the case.

I've read over what you've written, and I thank you again for your remarks. Thank you for the good luck wishes, and I hope you have a great weekend! joeyquism (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've come to realize that I do have a few burning questions about the FAC process as a newbie:

What is considered canvassing with respect to FACs? Is requesting reviews against the guidelines/looked down upon, even if done in a general, non-partisan manner? If not, what is the right way of going about requesting reviews? Additionally, is quid pro quo banned, or simply not an expectation?

An extract from my boilerplate on Finding Reviewers: "Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article." Spamming large numbers of editors with requests is unlikely to be well received.

What is the general number of support messages (without outstanding opposition and excluding source/image reviews) that is required for a nomination to succeed? I've seen something to the tune of four prose supports alongside a source and image review + copyvio check for new FAC nominators, and as low as three prose supports with source and image review for more experienced users who have succeeded at multiple FA nominations. Does this sound about right?

How long is a piece of string? The bare minimum is three general supports plus the usual other bits. That is unlikely to be considered sufficient for an editor's first nomination. Plus, say I with c. 550 reviews worth of experience submit 2,000 words of queries and comments and once these have all been addressed then support, while another editor who has not previously contributed to FAC comments "Great. I love Aoba. I have read through the article and think it should be promoted"; one is likely to be given more weight by the coordinators than the other.

Generally how long is the waiting time for candidates to be passed or failed? Note that I am not trying to seem impatient here; just wondering about the full timeline.

Depends on on how fast supports etc are gained. Usually a nomination is reviewed after three weeks: if it has no or little support it is likely to be archived; if it has four or more solid general supports plus the other bits it will be considered for promotion. Anything older than 12 weeks is well into borrowed time territory. So, 3-12 weeks. Ish. Bearing in mind that the coordinators all have real lives and other things they do on Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your guidance, and I hope to hear back from you soon. joeyquism (talk) 22:01, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]