Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alicia (album)/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) 28 June 2021 [1].

Alicia (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another album article, as complete as can be... Barring some major blind spot, just might need some tweaks, which the review process oughtta sort out. isento (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheAmazingPeanuts[edit]

The article look good, you have my support. Wish you luck. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from K. Peake[edit]

Resolved comments from K.Peake

It is only fair for me to comment on this FAC since I was the GA reviewer and you've helped out with my recent FAC, so before listing concerns I will say honestly that this article is mostly in great shape! However, Bustle should be removed or replaced because WP:RSP has come to no consensus about the reliability of the source, making it not suitable for FA. I understand that Rap-Up is usable for GA, but I do not see how it is a highly quality source for FA so would recommend replacing or removing, unless you have a reasonable argument for it being of such quality. Citation #32 is missing Rolling Stone from the ref layout, plus I suggest adding the url access parameter with subscription to all refs using this magazine like you have done for The Times and The Sunday Times to be consistent with formatting, while The New York Times should have this parameter and cite limited. --K. Peake 07:55, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the first Bustle source. But I would defend the second because the writer is one of note -- Shayla Lawson, a published author of music-related topics -- and the few citations to her article are observations/commentary on the album's music (WP:SUBJECTIVE). isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Using a disputed source is fine when the writer is considered reputable, so I will accept this. --K. Peake 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How isn't Rap-Up a high-quality source for an R&B album article? It's impact and reputability in this particular area are documented in Rap-Up#Impact. isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article itself says Rap-Up has no audit, plus can you provide evidence of an editorial process? --K. Peake 19:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The nytimes article sourcing that claim (from 2005) is referring to that in the context of its sales, so audit (as in the primary definition) is of the magazine's finances. Like the nytimes article, Muckrack lists the Lazerine brothers as the magazine's editors ([2], [3]). isento (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I'm sure I can replace these references since they mostly source quotes from Keys that may have been reprinted elsewhere... isento (talk) 21:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced them. isento (talk) 22:30, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the parameter to the nytimes citation, but I don't see why the Rolling Stone citations need them. Last I checked, the website's content is still free to all visitors. isento (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked and for the majority of the RS sources you are correct, but refs 41, 46 and 55 are all subscription required, so add the appropriate parameter. --K. Peake 19:59, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I checked other references, and it seems that articles from this magazine sometimes do ask for a log in and sometimes don't... so I will add the parameter to them all. Sad development I'm seeing, in any case. isento (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is always best to be on the safe side so good job here; I will now fully support this candidacy! --K. Peake 06:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

Resolved comments from 100cellsman

I think this article is acceptable enough for FA status, but the quote-box on the left is kind of lengthy to me. Also, the refrain for "Authors of Forever" should be best omitted since it can count as a copyright violation. 웃OO 01:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And I've trimmed the quote-box a bit. But I would defend the quoted lyrics with criteria from WP:NFCCP: "Minimal extent of use" (only four lines, as specified by Keys, of a ~48-line work), "Previous publication" (in Keys' memoir, with permission from the copyright holder), and "Contextual significance" (connected to central themes of the album, as discussed by Keys and other sources in the article). Similar qualities of pertinence and contextual significance at WP:QUOTATION also seem to justify this case, as does the idea of incorporating lyrics in the context of an "analytical framework" at WP:LYRICS. But let me know what you think to all of the above. isento (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my stance to support now. 웃OO 19:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images/Files[edit]

Is there any source discussing the sample File:Alicia Keys - Authors of Forever.ogg or is it just a custom-made cut that features the most representative portion of the song? Otherwise, sections are pertinent and ALT text is so-so; some files lack it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NPR uses the same soundbite, with the same lyrics that are oft-cited in sources, a few among them cited in this article. isento (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean about "some files lack it". Which images can use an improved ALT text? isento (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It means that not all files have ALT text. I think normally the point of an ALT text is to replace the information provided by the image, not to describe its content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote alt text for all images. In my experience, I am normally asked to offer descriptions of the images. Can you respond more thoroughly in regards to your concerns so I can have a better idea of how to resolve them? isento (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The general purpose of ALT text is to replace the image for readers that cannot see it. Ergo, if the image is meant to convey a specific information (e.g a physical description) that information needs to be in the ALT text. Otherwise, a generic description is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But I've also been advised of its connection to visually impaired readers. In any case, I've revised the alt text for each to comply with both concerns. Let me know what you think and whatever else needs to be resolved. isento (talk) 21:03, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a bit overlong, but OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What issue do you still have with the ALT text? isento (talk) 13:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems like I missed some of the improvements. I think it's ready to go now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks ! isento (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review–pass[edit]

Resolved comments from Heartfox
  • https://file1.largepdf.com/file/2020/04/08/More_Myself_-_Alicia_Keys.pdf#page=231&zoom=100,102,196 → isn't this a copyvio? you should remove the link per WP:COPYLINK.
    • Not sure. But yeah, it can go. isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book needs page numbers cited
  • "She held a private show for the radio station NRJ in Paris on February 4" → is there a source that reports this after the fact? (The article was written Jan 27). If not, what makes Sortira Paris a high-quality source?
  • News Break is a deprecated source following an RfC at WP:RSP.
  • Is there another source other than Insider for the delayed release date (fn 42)?
    • There's this by That Grape Juice and this by the hip hop blog OnSmash. isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are even more reputable sources that verify the delay from March to May; they just don't mention the detail about the streaming services. isento (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • An earlier review here questioned the quality of Rap-Up as the source, which was originally cited here. Instead of fighting the issue, I replaced it with Insider. isento (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Given that Insider cites Rap-Up, which in turn cites a random tweet, maybe go with the better sources as the streaming services listing it doesn't seem that important IMO. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Done. I've used a CBS News source. isento (talk) 02:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • probably add the dateline from the CBS Boston article and the Associated Press article and the locations for the other newspapers like Star Tribune.
    • What do you mean by dateline? Location, like Minneapolis for Star Tribune? isento (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, the date was there for the AP article, just rendered ahead of the title because no author is credited. I added Foxboro to the CBS Boston citation. And I replaced the Star Tribune source with ABC News since the former was a dead link. isento (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • fn 60 missing authors
  • fn 61 missing author
  • fn 61 missing date
  • fn 62 "UNSTAGED" doesn't need to be capitalized
  • fn 62 url-status=dead
  • fn 63 url-status=dead
  • fn 73 can be formatted as Template:Cite tweet
  • What makes Atwood Magazine a high-quality source?
    • It's been cited as a source in some books/journals by music journalists ([4], [5]) and academics ([6], [7]), as well as news sources like NME ([8]), BroadwayWorld ([9]), and Green Left Weekly ([10]). The magazine is an independent music publication used for critical commentary, connecting the music to the collective social consciousness, and cited among more mainstream sources. In the spirit of MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception, "Be sure to note minority opinions as well, properly cited. Also, the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture should be included to further establish notability. ... Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional journalists ... or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff". Zoominfo's records on Atwood shows employee and revenue records with editorial staff. One of their editors previously worked for the online magazines The 405 and Euphoria ([11]). isento (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm confused by the italicization. Official Charts Company fn 67 isn't, but iSpot.tv and iHeartRadio are?
    • Official Charts Company is an organization. Per Template:Cite web, this belongs in the publisher parameter, which does not italicize the name. isento (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could cite the website name -- officialcharts.com -- as the work, which would italicize it, but that's not normally done, as shown by the UK charts template (Template:Albumchart). isento (talk) 23:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Honestly, I would be open to any suggestion. I've never found much consistency or sense with how some of the work vs. publisher cases are handled at these articles. isento (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes there is a lot of contradiction between cite templates and MOS so I will not bother with this. Heartfox (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Heartfox (talk) 19:42, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pass for the source review. Good luck with the rest of the nomination! Heartfox (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate it very much. I'm listening to it now, and it's a beautiful album, really deserves more recognition. isento (talk) 05:35, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KyleJoan[edit]

Resolved comments from KyleJoan

I did a deep dive and found the article to be superb. The writing alone is outstanding. I'm only familiar with the album's singles, so the thorough read has been enlightening. I do have some revisions I'd like to suggest:

  • "during 2017 to 2019" → "from 2017 to 2019"
    • I would keep "during". "From" implies a definite start point, which no source can really verify here. 2017 is the earliest known year of recording, and "during" merely connotes a course of time ([12]) and thus is a more grammatically appropriate compromise, imo. isento (talk) 04:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My qualm about "during" is the "to 2019" extension. It would work fine if the statement only read "during 2017". How about "between 2017 and 2019"? It doesn't specify a start or end time, only estimates. KyleJoantalk 05:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done. isento (talk) 05:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • On second thought, and to avoid another "and" construction, I'll revert to "from 2017 to 2019". The sentence begins with the qualifier "primarily" (which can subsume the years of recording as well), and the sources indicate that she began recording at some point after Here (2016) and the absence from the Voice season (2017) -- returning to Oven would mean after Here, since that is also where that album was recorded. So the bulk of the timespan is 2017 to 2019. isento (talk) 05:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "identity as a multifaceted concept" → "a multifaceted concept of identity" – This would read more smoothly, as the other two themes in the sentence exist as a matter of fact rather than interpretative.
    • I think this would take away emphasis from identity while suggesting to readers that "mutlifaceted concept" may subsume the other two themes as well. As for readability, I would like to cite some Google search results (for the above phrasings) as a possible barometer: not counting this article in those results, many more academic articles seem to favor the current text than the suggested one. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, I didn't think about the term "concept" bleeding over to the other two themes. In that case, the existing phrasing suffices. KyleJoantalk 05:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album has been described by Keys" → "Keys describes the album"
    • That is a great suggestion; more variety in dependent-clause subject. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keys will perform in concert" – Replace "will" with "is set to" or "is expected to" to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL.
  • "In 2016, Alicia Keys released her sixth studio album Here" – The "singer-songwriter" description in the first sentence should go here as well since this is the body's opener.
  • "In the spirit of Here's unrefined aesthetic, the singer stopped wearing makeup that year." – The Variety article doesn't correlate her not wearing makeup with the album. It seems the two merely coincided with her stance on perfection, all after Girl on Fire. It would be more appropriate to state the three neutrally and let readers draw the connection. It seems fairly easy to infer that Here's bareness fits the idea of going makeup-free and the rejection of perfection.
    • Actually, revisiting that article now, I see it suggests Here and going bare-face were acts of her ditching perfectionism. So I've reworded accordingly. Thanks! isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keys reportedly returned to Oven Studios" – When?
    • I recall there being no source to verify that. And the source cited doesn't say either. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, it avoids emphatic hooks and motifs characteristic of her past music." – In this structure, to avoid mistaking "characteristic" as a noun, maybe use a different adjective (e.g., "singular" or "distinctive")?
  • "evoking a particular mood rather than conforming to a singular sound" – The NME article says that mood is more important than any sound, which seems like a simple way of saying "a conventional genre", so rephrasing the description "a singular sound" to anything that resembles it would work.
    • The source uses the phrase "any specific sound", so I'll keep "singular" but use "genre" in place of "sound". isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Alicia has been described by Keys as 'a musical exploration of identity – both my own and ours collectively'." – Make it clear that this is a quote from her book so readers get a sense of who she means by "ours".
  • "reflecting different dimensions of her relationship to people as a whole" – Would "mirroring" be more appropriate than "reflecting"?
  • "Subsequent tracks advocate more positive pleas for hope and change" – Make it clear that she was referencing the state of the world in this sentence. While sentences later in the paragraph hint at this, a clear reference would make the general statement less ambiguous.
  • "She performed 'Good Job' and 'Perfect Way to Die' for CNN and the BET Awards 2020, respectively." → "She performed 'Good Job" and 'Perfect Way to Die' on CNN and at the 2020 BET Awards, respectively."
  • "In June 2020, Keys premiered 'Gramercy Park' during her first-ever appearance on NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts, alongside 'Underdog', 'Show Me Love', and her 2001 song 'Fallin'." – Since she didn't premiere the other three songs, state that she simply performed them.
  • "she made appearances at Good Morning America and the iHeartRadio Music Festival" → "she made appearances on Good Morning America and at the iHeartRadio Music Festival"
  • "and a performance at the 2020 Billboard Awards on October 14" – State the award ceremony's proper name and italicize "Billboard" (i.e., "2020 Billboard Music Awards")
  • "'Generosity tempered with humility is a rare and welcome look', he wrote of her performance." – From reading the review, it seems Dolan was commending the album's content and not any performance since the paragraph from which the quote is pulled highlights specific songs (and lyrics).
    • Dolan notes that the lyrics are "delivered with a genuine sense of concern", so it extends a bit beyond the written words. But I'll sum it up as "the singer" in place of "her performance". isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For the 2021 NAACP Image Awards, Alicia was nominated in the category of Outstanding Album." → "At the 2021 NAACP Image Awards..." – It would be appropriate to also note that "So Done" and "Jill Scott" received nominations in other categories.
    • Great find! Just let me know if the way I worded the subcategory bit works. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to challenge any of these points. I'd be happy to discuss them. Wonderful work! KyleJoantalk 10:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciated seeing your kind comments and the suggestions, thank you. Apart from a few points, I edited the article accordingly. isento (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've addressed all of the suggested revisions, I'm happy to support this candidacy. Wonderful work! KyleJoantalk 06:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buddy :D isento (talk) 06:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Although R&B is one of my favorite genres, I have surprisingly not heard any of the songs from the album. Hopefully, my more outside perspective will be beneficial for my review. My comments are below:

Resolved comments
  • This is rather nitpick-y, but I have a comment about this part, Keys collaborated with more artists on the recording than in her previous albums, from the lead. I find the "recording" word choice to be unnecessarily vague. I would instead just say with more artists on Alicia to avoid that.
    • Her first name already appears in the lead seven times. For variety's sake, I'd stick with it. And an album is a recording, as evinced to readers by the second sentence. isento (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just remember getting a note in the past about recording being too vague of a word choice since it mean almost anything, but I do not feel strongly about it either way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the subtly melodic music part from the lead. It is a Variety quote used in the body of the article so I do not think it is appropriate to use in the lead without clarifying it is a quote and attributing it. For that reason, I would suggest that you paraphrase it. Also, I find this to read more like praise, which I do not think fits in the lead, but that could just be my reading of it.
    • Praise adjudges the merits of a thing. This is merely a description. But you're right: I've reworded it as "melodically subtle", which is an improvement. isento (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still see it as reading more like a positive review, but that's not a real sticking point for me so the revision works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure this album had a traditional rollout campaign. From my understand, this would entail a lead single followed by a single at (or around) the album's release with further singles after that. That is not true here as all the singles were released prior to the album. The lead somewhat acknowledges this by saying it was "extended", but the body of the article identifies this with that type of campaign. In fact, this album's campaign reminds me more of those used in Asian markets (specifically J-pop and K-pop) where all the singles put out before an album. So I am curious on where this traditional rollout is coming from?
    • The Rolling Stone source cited in "Marketing and sales". And these kinds of campaigns are elaborated on in album era, whose source(s) identify singles (without a release-timetable specified), music videos, media appearances, and a supporting concert tour as characteristics, which this project ha(s/d). The pandemic prolonged the marketing campaign. isento (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am uncertain about the surprise album link in this part, After a surprise announcement of its impending release in September. I do not think this would be considered a surprise album since Keys made an announcement four days prior to its release, and while that is a very short period of time, I always thought surprise albums were released without any announcements. I think the link here is a little misleading (and I could see it being an Easter egg).
    • Surprise album makes clear that the announcement can be minimal, and the source cited in regards to Alicia makes the connection clear enough to the topic of that article. isento (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am still not entirely convinced. In the article, only one reviewer discusses this in the context of a surprise album (and even then it is more of a comparison). Have any other publications referred to this as a surprise album or used that in their discussions? Aoba47 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • [13] (ZIP FM) isento (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Showbiz411's Roger Friedman notes that press were not notified early of its release, with a headline that calls it a "surprise". isento (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This part, a raw departure from the more sophisticated and anthemic R&B music of her first five albums, reads rather promotional to me in tone. I can understand the "raw departure" bit at the beginning, but the sophisticated and anthemic part in particularly reads too much like praise for her past work to me.
    • It's really not. Anthems are of a particular aesthetic/tradition, as described at that article. And the word is used here merely as an adjective to denote those qualities, which is integral to an intellectual discussion of her music. I think you're projecting a certain connotation onto these words, when they're merely being used here to describe, as per the sources cited. isento (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I could see the anthems part being objective, but describing something as "sophisticated" reads like praise to me. Aoba47 (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why? isento (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do not see "sophisticated" as an objective way of describing something. I see it more as praising something as being "sophisticated" (whether in design or complexity). I am mostly uncertain about this since this information is presented in Wikipedia's voice as an objective fact about her music, and to be honest, it just reads like a very positive review of her past work. Aoba47 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I meant, why does "sophisticated" read as praise to you? I've read (and can cite) plenty of reviews where the critic devalues sophistication in their appraisal of the work's merits. If you're (unconsciously) projecting positive values onto this quality, however, then I'm afraid it's your objection that isn't objective. isento (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I looked at the citation and it describes Keys herself as "sleekly sophisticated" not her first five albums. The anthemic part works after your explanation, but the sophisticated does not work tonally (in my opinion) and does not match the source. Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Lol you're really splitting hairs there. The writer says she spent the first five albums as a sleekly sophisticated musician. I just paraphrased it, but the original meaning is the same. isento (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I would have really appreciated that explanation without the lol. That part was just unnecessary. You did help me to see the part that I was missing so this part is fine as it stands. Aoba47 (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, it was meant as an ice-breaker... I also wanted to add that other high-quality sources verify this identification of her past music, among them PopMatters and AllMusic. isento (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • It's all good. I had misread the source so that was on me. Thank you for taking the time to explain that. The article is in very great shape btw if I have not made that clear already. My review is mostly just minor things. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are unfixed romances? I am referring to this part, explored themes beyond the unfixed romances that predominated her earlier music.
    • That was my best attempt at the time to paraphrase "unsettled romances", but on further reflection I can do better and will change it to "uncertain romantic relationships". isento (talk) 00:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would revise this part, from the show's 2017 season, to say (and probably link) the exact season as two seasons aired that year. Also, I have never heard a season (at least for an American show) being referenced by a year like this.
  • I am uncertain about the citation placement for this part, her impressionistic lyrics, since it cuts off the prose rather awkwardly and hinders readability (at least in my opinion). I understand why you put it there, (to make sure this part is directly attributed), but it still looks off to me.
    • I've moved it toward the end. isento (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, advocates voter turnout in the context of a movement, I would write out "social movement" in full just to make it absolutely clear to the reader what is being referenced and what article is being linked there.
  • This is super nitpick-y, but for this part, featured in a TV ad, spell out TV as television. TV is a little informal for Wikipedia.
  • I would link grand piano in this part, an upright piano (rather than her customary grand piano). It may be a redirect, but it goes to a rather informative part of the piano article.
  • "Girl on Fire" is linked twice and after you mention the song for the first time, you do not need to include the release year for subsequent references. I would look through the article to make sure other songs are not over-linked in this manner.
  • For this part, She performed "Good Job" and "Perfect Way to Die" on CNN, I would provide more context (i.e. this was performed as part of a CNN town hall meeting) as the current wording is unnecessarily vague about that.
  • For this part, during her first-ever appearance on NPR's Tiny Desk Concerts, remove first-ever as it not needed.
    • I think this is a worthwhile thing to mention, since the show's been on for many years and generally spotlights alternative acts (as opposed to mainstream/pop acts). It would also give some reason as to why she performed "Fallin'" (2001) on there. isento (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of the two wikilinks in the "See also" section seem necessary to me. I do not really see a strong tie with this article and album era and while this was affected by COVID-19, I do not think that link is particularly useful (and I would instead incorporate it into the article's prose).
  • I do not think the "Further reading" part is needed either, especially since I do not think student newspapers like The Harvard Crimson are seen as appropriate sources for Wikipedia.
    • Wikipedia:Further reading#Reliability says historically important publications, regardless of reliability, can be included. And, as far as musical analysis goes, the review offers "additional and more detailed overage of the subject" (per the guideline). isento (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage you to archive all of your web citations. I believe a majority of them are already archived, but I would make sure to do the rest. It is not required for the FAC, but it will save you a lot of headache in the future.
    • Yeah, definitely. I want to do that for my other work too. isento (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Keys should linked in Citation 25 since she is linked in other citations.
    • That would be overlinking. And I'm gonna reduce linking of her name throughout the references to only the first time. MOS:DUPLINK says citations can repeat links, but I don't see the sense in having an entire section of repeated links to authors and publications, so I'm gonna choose no to. isento (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work with the article. Once everything is addressed, I will read through it again to make sure I have not missed anything and I will likely support at that point. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:38, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! And I hope you get a chance to listen to the album. It's not a musical masterwork or anything, but it certainly has merit on its own terms. isento (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Great work and I will check it out sometime in the future. You did a good job with writing an article that kept me engaged and makes me want to listen to the album. Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks ! Wonderful to see this :D isento (talk) 16:52, 20 June 2021 (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/Alicia_(album)/archive1&oldid=1030956176"