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 Laser brain 16:20, 15 December 2010 [1].

---

Maya (M.I.A. album)[edit]

Maya (M.I.A. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Maya (M.I.A. album)/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Maya (M.I.A. album)/archive2

Toolbox
Analysis Citation bot External links

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/\lready a Good /\rticle, I think it has the potential to become a Featured /\rticle with minimal tweaking. I'll stop messing about with punctuation marks now ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There are no dab links in the article but there is a dead link. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I noticed that the Metacritic is both a reference and and an external link. I think that you should remove the reference from the external links section. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources comments: (I have not checked the foreign language sources)

• Ref 4: Can you indicate where the statement in the text is confirmed in this source?
  • The content which was originally referencing that sentence appears to have disappeared, so I removed it
• Ref 6: What makes HitQuarters a reliable encyclopedic source?
  • Content sourced to HitQuarters removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 7: Non-print sources should not be italicised, The same applies in refs 10, 18, 52 and probably others - please check through.
  • All caught I think, let me know if I missed any......
    • I think PopMatters is an online, not a print source. Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 27: Link Los Angeles Times
  • Fixed
• Ref 37: Why is "D.J.Skee" indicated as the publisher?
  • It is from his official YouTube channel
    • This is now 36. The site consists entirely of blog comments as far as I can see. Where is the support for the cited sentence? Brianboulton (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you watch the video, the bit about "liking how the album title looks on iTunes" is supported by the comments M.I.A. makes between approx 2:00 and 2:15. Is there a way to make this clearer in the citation...........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ref 53: Publisher missing
  • Fixed
• Ref 55: Publisher missing
  • Fixed
• Ref 59: "Suspended" link
  • Removed the section, probably went off topic anyway
• Ref 60: "Does not exist" Re this and 59, for how long are tweets accessible? Can they be considered a verifiable source, long-term?
  • As above
• Ref 70: Exclaim should be italicised
  • Fixed
• Ref 75: Publisher missing
  • Fixed
• As noted above, the Metacritic link should be removed from External links
  • Done

Otherwise, sources and citations look OK. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Many thanks for your comments, have addressed some, will get to the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All addressed now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there any source for the "/\/\/\Y/\" stylisation? All I see to support that in the article is the album cover art. That strikes me as particularly tenuous since it is inferring something simply from a typeface used in an artwork. I do see thif referenced by that title in a reference for the New York Daily News but a direct reference to something authoritative would be preferable, especially when there are sources to the opposite. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 04:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • M.I.A.'s official MySpace page has a huge banner on it saying "BUY /\/\/\Y/\"...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Query concerning unsupported claim:

• [Lede:] "Elements of industrial music were incorporated into M.I.A.'s sound for the first time."

"For the first time"? I don't see any support for that part of the claim in the main text.—DCGeist (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted (hopefully).......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments

• Link Danish Albums Chart (to Tracklisten)
• Add publishers to: People, BBC 6 Music, NME, The Guardian Daily Express. There may be others.

Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • All done I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Umm, tracklisten doesnot publish the Danish Albums chart. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Removed again :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Someone does, and Danish Album Chart redirects to tracklisten. Is it the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry? Also, who publishes the Austrian chart? Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • As far as I can tell, the Austrian charts are published by Hitradio Ö3, so I've wikilinked it to that. The Danish chart does indeed seem to be published by IFPI Denmark according to this, so I've wikilinked to IFPI Denmark and created the briefest of stubs on that body -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All Billboard refs are missing publishers (btw Billboard has been owned by Prometheus Global Media since late last year), as are some NME and Entertainment Weekly refs. Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All caught, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. The triviality of these issues probably tells you that I'm happy to support now Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments – I couldnot help but lol at the F/\C nom-nom opening line you did. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that "XXXO" and "It Takes a Muscle" were both released as singles. However, there is no commentary regarding the fate of the singles, critically or commercially. It should be included, albeit as one line atleast, else the section remains incomplete.
  • Actually the article already says "The single "XXXO" reached the top 40 in Belgium, Spain and the U.K.", so that is covered. I've removed the claim that "It Takes A Muscle" was released as a single. Although it apparently received limited radio play, I can find no evidence that it was actually released as a single per se..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• In the infbox, change "It Takes A Muscle" to "It Takes a Muscle".
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• At the end of April the track "Born Free" was released as a download — Was it a promotional single?
  • What is a "promotional single"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes labels release a song to iTunes, before the album release, just to notify everyone and promote that this particular album is going to be released. Hence those acts as promotional single. "Born Free" seems like one, hence just clarify it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• album's cover was previewed in June -> June when?
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Move up, or shift teh image of Rusko, because it is overlapping between two section headers, even with the lowest screen resolution.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Lead needs to be enhanced to incorporate the prmotional aspects, which is missing.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The tracklisting section looks messy. Why not use ((tracklist)) to have a professional look?
  • The template used here matches the one in the articles on her other albums, and personally I think it looks fine. If it's a deal-breaker, though, I'll change it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The refernces need a clean-up as many of them have overlinks in them. Also, the NME references need their volume, issue and issn if you are referencing the physical magazine. I know their website suddenly shows 404 for all the old urls. It sucks.
  • I have the relevant issues of NME in front of me here and they do not have volume or issue numbers, only a date. ISSN added. What are the issues with overlinking? I've always been told that works/publishers should be linked every time they're used in references, because what is currently the first appearance of a work within the refs section might not always be the first....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats fine as you put it. Its just that in my experience with FA articles, overlinking of any nature is a little frowned upon. But no issue. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The EL doesnot necessary pertain information related to the album, hence will be counted as a spamming link.
  • Removed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As per new discussions, chart procession boxes have been rendered redundant. Just list the electronic dance album 2010 list in the See also section.
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-check references for the italization and non-italization of printed and online sources.
  • All seem right to me, please point out any I've missed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are the points I found at first glance. More will come later. Feel free to ping me if any querries. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Well since my points have been addressed, I am happy to support this article now. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The article is well-written, but the content at times needs reorganising, and some sections tend to be a little long.

• Reception: Seventeen reviews are quoted here; I don't think you need that many to summarise the different opinions about the record.
  • Chopped a bunch out -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Promotion: this might sound harsh, but that big third paragraph is very boring. It's basically one sentence after another of "and then MIA played this festival." Can you just cite a source that summarises her promotional shows and point out highlights? Same goes for the song-by-song release of the album onto the Internet (first paragraph). But here you can probably expand on the "Born Free" video controversy, which generated a lot of hype (basically, it would be interesting to read about that).
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The Lynn Hirschberg incident: in the article body, this is just one short paragraph. However, almost all of it finds its way to the lead. Further, the info here is almost entirely pro-MIA and anti-Hirschberg. What about the valid criticisms in the Times profile? And why is there no mention of MIA tweeting Ms. Hirschberg's home telephone number in retaliation?
  • Despite the fact there are no valid criticisms that can be gleaned from a WP:QS like the profile, and the piece itself is condemned by the sources included and others describing it, I don't see why the many sources speculating whether the hit piece's exposure via M.I.A.'s release of the secret recording affected reviews shoudn't be included, since there are valid sources covering this aspect. On the flip side, seeing as this might give the whole incident WP:UNDUE weight, and the 'controversy' is already mentioned in a line in the lead, perhaps the present version suffices. Lifebonzza (talk) 11:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Artwork: this section needs to be reorganised. Why begin with the limited-edition artwork, when you should be describing the main cover? i.e., start with "Maya's album cover features MIA's face almost completely hidden by YouTube player bars", and then move on to how to it was created, when it was previewed (IMO not necessary to mention at all). What is "lyrics to each piece"?—indopug (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artwork section re-arranged. Removed the bit about lyrics to each piece, as it seems to be a misinterpretation of what the source actually says -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments:
• I think the article reads really well, however a couple of points:
• Promotion: While it included that she was the most blogged about artist on the following Born Free's release, perhaps some of the videos themes and reaction could be expanded here, and her response to the 'controversy'.
  • I have added a snippet about her reaction, but I think the level of detail about the video is adequate as it stands, considering that this article is about the album, not the song or its video..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Music:More theme coverage would be beneficial to read here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifebonzza (talk • contribs)
  • Some more added, think all the major themes of the album as a whole and key individual songs are now covered..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I have asked Brianboulton and indopug if they would be able to pop back and review my responses to their comments, all of which I believe I addressed about 10 days ago...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I am happy with the responses to the sources issues, and I apologise for my tardiness in revisiting. Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - is it deemed acceptable to ask Indopug for a second time if he/she would mind returning here to see if he/she is satisfied with my responses to the points he/she raised? Or is that seen as harrassment.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:41, 14 December 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.