Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Illinois (album)/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 not promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:12, 7 August 2010 [1].

Illinois (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC), Jujutacular ^talk 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because it met all of the requirements for GA status and was then further amended based on those recommendations. I have suggested some further changes, but the article at present is stable and none of those changes should be a serious impediment to FA status. User:Jujutacular and to a lesser extent myself (User:Koavf) have been the primary contributors. I am willing to amend the article based on comments here and I have posted to Jujutacular's talk to inform him of this FA nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominated. Thanks Koavf. Jujutacular ^talk 18:22, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment—dab link to Centerville, Illinois. Ref 6 appears to have a connection issue. WackyWace ^{converse | contribs} 19:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comment: Consistency required on use of retrieval dates for on-line versions of print sources. For example, 29 (Washington Post) has a retrieval date, 18 (Chicago Reader) doesn't. It's OK to omit retrieval dates when printed versions exist as long as you are consistent throughout. Otherwise sources look OK, no outstanding issues. Brianboulton (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Jujutacular ^talk 17:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose: The prose is not up to Featured artcile quality in my opinion. Phrases such as the following don't read well to me. Throughout the article has a choppy feel, it doesn't flow, seems like a series of disconnected sentences. I think it needs a thorough copy-edit, preferably by someone not previously involved. Criteria 1 (a): "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard" applies - I feel it fails to meet that criteria.
"The album was produced between the autumn of 2004 and early 2005 and released on July 5, 2005, on Asthmatic Kitty Records domestically and the previous date through Rough Trade Records in Europe."

"The album was primarily recorded in the Astoria, Queens studio The Buddy Project as well as Stevens' Brooklyn apartment."

"Stevens mostly created the album in isolation:"

"The recording equipment used was below the quality of most professional albums."

"Many of the lyrics of Illinois make references to Christianity and the Bible. The song "Decatur, or, Round of Applause for Your Stepmother!" includes the line: "It's the great I Am", taking from the response God gave when Moses asked for his name in the Book of Exodus (Exodus 3:14.)"

"Public reception of Illinois was strong."

" Rolling Stone's Rob Sheffield criticized the song "John Wayne Gacy, Jr." as symbolizing "nothing about American life except the existence of creative-writing workshops", but ultimately praised Stevens' style of "going too far and trying too hard"."

Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prose and structure concerns - sorry, but I feel more work is needed before this is ready for FAC. Per WP:LEAD (and criterion 2a) the lead should summarize the article; however, it gives little coverage of anything in Background and recording, only saying, "The album was produced between the autumn of 2004 and early 2005". Likewise Musical style gets no mention in the lead. Meanwhile that section, after devoting time to Stevens's musical style rather than that of the album, turns to influences and listening approaches but never actually identifies the musical style of the album. The third sentence in the lead, "The album was produced between the autumn of 2004 and early 2005 and released on July 5, 2005, on Asthmatic Kitty Records domestically and the previous date through Rough Trade Records in Europe", employs the needlessly clumsy "previous date", and in fact no previous date appears in the sentence. Another date approximation in that sentence, "autumn", is a form deprecated by MOS:DATE. Other sundry MoS issues jump out, such as "reaching number 1". Sorry; it gives me no pleasure to have to say this, but I suggest the nominators may wish to withdraw the nomination and devote considerable further attention to the article if it is to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". PL290 (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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