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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2016 [1].

The Ecstatic[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2009 album by American rapper Mos Def. It was his first album after changing labels and was viewed by journalists as a creative comeback, after two poorly received albums and his greater devotion to acting roles. It was titled after the Victor LaValle novel, whose titled Mos Def felt evoked his singular, unprecedented creative vision for the album. The Ecstatic has been noted for having an internationalist quality, sampling a range of global styles while including references to global politics and Islam in Mos Def's eccentric, conscious raps. It performed modestly sales-wise, but was a widespread critical success and named one of 2009's best albums by several publications. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Aoba47 (talk)

This is an interesting and well-researched read! I have left some comments below:

  • The infobox should have the date(s) in which the album is recorded. It is great that you added the studio information, but the recording dates are also important.
It should if they're available lol... unfortunately they're not :( Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I figured this would be the case, but I just wanted to double-check. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following phrasing reads a little awkwardly to me: (After venturing further away from hip hop with an acting career and two poorly received albums…). I do not fully see the connection between Mos Def’s decision to pursue an acting career and the poor reception of his prior works fully connecting with his decision to not be involved with hip hop. The same goes for the sentences in the “Recording and production”. It is merely stated without much support explaining the claim.
The music on his previous two albums found him venturing away from hip hop (especially The New Danger), and him devoting more time to acting meant him being involved less in music, i.e. hip hop. It wasn't a conscious decision to not be involved in hip hop, just a trend in his work. This seemed self-explanatory to me. Maybe if I add "in his music" after "along with his repeated ventures away from hip hop"? Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the addition of "in his music" would be helpful, because I honestly didn't get that meaning from that. I actually read it as a conscious move away from hip hop on his part. Then again I know absolutely nothing about this artist so that could be a factor, but I feel clarity is always important. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think charted needs to be linked in the lead, as it is a pretty basic concept. The same comment applies to still, blogs, and download.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure if the "No disrespect to [the club]" quote is necessary as the information is clear from the rest of the sentence and it does not add much of anything to a reader's understanding of the material.
It's part of the whole quote. I didn't want to cherry pick the rest and give readers the impression he's some narrow-mindedly moralistic conscious rapper who's against that otherside of hip hop's dichotomy, i.e. the club. If anything, I left it there for character, or insight into his character, or just to end the section with some character of its own. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that is okay then, I am still not 100 percent sold on the inclusion of the quote, especially as it is just thrown at the end of a sentence, but if you feel that it is that important, then it is fine. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest splitting the “Release and reception” section into two separate sections, with one focusing on the release, promotion, and commercial performance and the other focusing on the critical reception and accolades.
I never liked that school of thought on arranging this particular information. "Commercial performance" sounds like such a clumsy heading to me, and the prose wouldn't flow as well IMO; the last paragraph in particular would feel out of place. I often consolidate this information into broader, fleshed out sections rather than smaller, more specific ones in my articles--like Agharta (album), or WesleyDodds's work at In Utero (album)--and I feel it works best here as well. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the paragraph about Preservation’s production and release of a remix album directly after the paragraphs about the tour and the album’s release (as the information directly deals with that as opposed to the critical reception of the main album).
It's the last item, chronologically speaking, so I wanted to leave it last; the remix project was done over a period that went far past the time frame of the information in this section. It's also least important to the article's topic, which is the original album, and it includes a review, which should be gotten into after the response to the original album is explored IMO. For those reasons, I'd prefer to leave it as is. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not 100 percent sold on this idea, but it is your article so if you strong believe in this structure, then that is also fine. The infromation about Preservation just seemed to come competely out of left field when it is put after the nominations for the album itself. Aoba47 (talk)
  • I would recommend adding the total length of the album at the end of the track listing
According to Template:Track_listing#Parameters, this is not useful in most cases as the infobox will have this information already and "useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)", or releases with different editions; The Ecstatic was released in only one edition. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference where you received the information for the “Personnel” section. You have the citation in the "Track listing" section, but I would advise moving it directly into this section instead.
I have a hidden comment in the Personnel section, advising would-be editors of that section that the source is Downtown Music, just in case. Otherwise, I think the citation is implied for both sections, since they're both full of credits: "Credits are adapted from Downtown Music"... and repeating it would feel tacky. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Works fo rme. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would recommend including a link to Mos Def discography in the “See also” section
Done. Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are all the comments that I have noticed while looking over the article. Everything looks great and I I learned a lot while reading through the article. I will cast my vote after my comments are addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes and responded to other suggestions @Aoba47: Dan56 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: With my issues being resolved, I'm now willing support to this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dan56: support - great article - one that can be held up as an example for all others.Timtempleton (talk) 14:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks clean and organized to me, I suggest for it to be featured. Xboxmanwar (talk) 04:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support This is a well-written article. Good candidate for FA. --Wario-Man (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Jonesey95[edit]

Reviewing criterion by criterion:

Summary: Very well done. Find a way to deal with the date errors in the Anon citations, and this should pass easily. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's been fixed @Jonesey95:, thanks to DrKay ([2]) Dan56 (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Support this FA nomination. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Fair bit o' images here, so...

The infobox file has an ALT text but I wonder how old that fellow is. The other files need ALT text as well, per MOS:ACCESSIBILITY. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added ALT text to the other images. Dan56 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. These are my edits. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk) 21:00, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - all OK[edit]

Comment

Cool, and I've added a citation to the personnel section @GermanJoe: Dan56 (talk) 04:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All OK now - status updated. GermanJoe (talk) 08:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Retrohead[edit]

"Eventually", so it would be referring to the latest sales figure. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Eventually" means "in the end" per Google, and I thought it was by the end of the week (from reading the lead only). Can you modify it like this: "Released on June 9, 2009, The Ecstatic debuted at number nine on the Billboard 200 selling 39,000 copies, and moved 168,000 copies by March 2014."
But there's nothing about the end of any week in the lead, and that flows/reads less smoothly than what's currently in the lead. According to Merriam, "eventually" means "at some later time" or "in the end". Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And can you replace eventually with "by March 2014", so that we know when the latest sales figure was registered?
It's a tad bit much detail for my taste, with no neat way of writing it, while begging the question of when the charting took place and creating the impression the lead is jumping back and forth chronologically. Just keep it simple and concisely written. I don't see the problem with how it is now. Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're referring to the process (of making recorded music); the sentence is referring to the recorded music (eg. "a production"). Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't necessarily just "sing-song vamps", as the source cited adds: "...the frequent times when he drops into quasi-aimless sing-song vamping-- or straight-up attempted singing". Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, "elsewhere" means "some other place", and has unclear meaning. Be more precise in what you mean by "elsewhere"–singing over the guitar solos, having multilayered vocals, etc. (just throwing guesses).
I disagree. Read the previous sentence; songs/moments on the album are being listed, so the context is established and clear enough: on other songs (throughout the album). Dan56 (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stranger things have happened. I also cited a source lol. Dan56 (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt this. May I have a link to the actual page on Google books? I can not enter the page cited, but you can provide a preview.
Doesn't the link I provided work? This is the relevant text: "...offer a physical product that contains the code for a free download of your album. Mos Def was so successful with the T-shirt release of The Ecstatic that Billboard magazine even began counting it as a music release on their charts. Prince did the same with an inclusion of his 20Ten in the UK's Daily Mirror newspaper." Dan56 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok now, the previous link you gave me only showed the book's cover and information about the content and the author.
@Retrohead: Did you have more to add? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No Ian, that would be all.--Retrohead (talk) 13:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More