Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy/archive4

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 archived by FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 27 July 2024 [1].

My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Nominator(s): K. Peake 20:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy (2010), the fifth studio album by American rapper Kanye West. It was recorded during West's exile in Hawaii after a period of controversy through 2009, resulting in a maximalist style with elements of his previous work. The album was met with widespread critical acclaim and also received much retrospective praise, including being ranked as one of the greatest albums of all time. West promoted the album with four singles that were top 40 hits in the United States and the film Runaway, while it reached the top 10 in countries like the US and Canada. The article became a GA back in 2011, more than five years before I joined this site, though I have monitored it over the years and put in extensive work back in both 2022 for the first FAC and even more so for the multiple candidacies of 2024. The blocks to FAC on the last occasions were mainly the book sources not included, too much close phrasing and parts not reading smoothly, although I have put so much in to get this to another nomination around three months later for West's magnum ops! We can do this, West fans! --K. Peake 20:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NØ

~~Oppose~~ - Thanks for the invite. I thought this article did need a peer review while reading it the last time and am not sure the ~~two~~ edits made since have done enough to take care of the criteria 1a and other concerns. I would be glad to reconsider if other reviewers disagree and best of luck--N Ø 08:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"he supported My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy with four US Billboard Hot 100 top-40 singles, including "Power" and "All of the Lights"" - Four doesn't seem like too many so why not name all?
"musical short film, Runaway" - There is a MOS:SOB in this part.
"The album was an immediate and widespread critical success, with music critics lauding the maximalism, and was listed as the best album of 2010 in many publications' year-end lists." - Suggest split: "The album was an immediate and widespread critical success, and reviewers lauded the maximalism. It was listed as the best album of 2010 in many publications' year-end lists."
"It was awarded Best Rap Album at the 54th Annual Grammy Awards, alongside winning CD of the Year at the 2011 BET Hip Hop Awards." - This slightly makes it sound like the latter is less important so I would suggest: "It was awarded Best Rap Album at the 54th Annual Grammy Awards and CD of the Year at the 2011 BET Hip Hop Awards."
"My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy debuted at number one on the US Billboard 200, while reaching the top 10 in five other countries, including also topping the Canadian Albums Chart" - I would suggest the less convoluted "My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy debuted at number one in the US and Canada, and it reached the top 10 in some other countries". The Canada #1 position seems to be a debut too and the five countries claim is unsourced.

I thought the vote is more useful accompanied by actionable comments. This covers the lead section.--N Ø 16:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan Thank you for these comments, I have implemented into the lead now! --K. Peake 10:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition struck. I hope I am able to review fully eventually.--N Ø 18:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan I have now worked the article into not just a more clear critical reception, but also worked on the music and themes heavily if you would care to leave any further comments now! --K. Peake 20:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox

My concern from last time about the critical reception section hasn't really been addressed. The second paragraph is still a collection of disparate opinions rather than focusing on one theme. All I am discerning as a reader from the critical reception section is that critics focused on how it was maximalist, but some were "more qualified in their praise". Okay, but is this really all that is evident? Is there nothing about production choices, vocals, guest appearances, lyrics, etc.? So far only reception of the genre is covered with the maximalism paragraph. There are 45 reviews indexed on Metacritic alone, but only 12 are given in the prose. I don't think 25% is good enough. Overall this section still does not feel like "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", so I will unfortunately have to oppose per WP:FACR 1c. Heartfox (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: and MaranoFan, I appreciate these comments and I've now made a very large edit to make the reception have more of an interesting flow, I appreciate this may be seen as "one edit" but I took my time and absolute effort to smoothen this out rather than just adding a few sources in or something light like most singular edits, so please let me know now what your thoughts are. --K. Peake 09:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced that 15 sources is a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I easily found a dozen reviews on ProQuest that are not on Metacritic without even doing an in-depth search. Have you gone through databases on WP:TWL for reviews? Heartfox (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox I am sorry but what do you think is the issue with a lack of having more than 15 sources or are you sure you are not reaching towards overciting here? In the case of the reception having a theme, how does the level of cohesiveness now carried not have a clear theme as to what the reviewers discussed? --K. Peake 06:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about overcite, it's that I highly doubt these are the only themes evident in the literature when it is clear a big portion of the literature has not been consulted. How can not one of the two dozen reviews on ProQuest and Newspapers.com be useful? Even ones that are freely online like Billboard, BBC Music, The Telegraph ... how can these high-quality sources be ignored?? They are not cited anywhere in the article, much less the reception section. How can so much be so useless? Heartfox (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I understand now - these sources would work more suitably for being part of the album's literature at large, not necessarily just under critical reception as that could become too extensive. K. Peake 10:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: Thank you for the full context and I will be looking into these, however I'm on holiday for the next 5 nights so won't properly start until back. --K. Peake 07:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: I appreciate the comments and that this article had been lacking the broadness it could reach, although I have now not only added in many sources to the article's depth but also grouped into consensuses for the most part rather than "X said Y" as 100cellsman suggested, how do you feel about the article's current state? --K. Peake 20:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman

Hello! This is more of a comment and not a stance on the article. I initially supported this article in the previous FAC review, but inspecting the article again and reading the FAC comments, I found personal issues with it. I think the prose of the Musical Styles and Lyrics and Themes sections has way too much of individual critics commenting on certain aspects of the album, sometimes in a He said-She said-They said kind of way. It feels like I'm reading the article from a critic's POV rather than an encyclopedic one. If it were me, I would reexamine the sources for what is generally agreed upon by the critics, and then condense them in the prose. I don't like to use every single statement from every single critic, and I usually rule out on what I think doesn't benefit the article. 웃O O 04:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman Thanks a lot for these comments and I recognize that although this can take time, it has been implemented further now and would like to ask is this looking closer to what you are envisioning here? --K. Peake 16:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's much easier to read now, but I find "In the eyes of author Bernadette Marie Calafell" a bit strange. 웃O O 23:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100cellsman I have changed that to more recognized terminology now, do you have any further comments? --K. Peake 06:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any to give at the moment, and I don't want to disrupt the FAC process by trying to look for problems. 웃O O 05:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid with concerns regarding the prose quality and the article's comprehensiveness and a lack of support, it doesn't look like it will reach consensus anytime soon, and FAC certainly isn't the place to handle issues this serious. I'm archiving this, noting that the usual two-week wait before another nomination will apply. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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