Thought I would give people a break from endless articles on Gillingham F.C. :-) Back in 2013 I successfully nominated this article for GA but I'm not sure why I never brought it to FAC as I had done with the artist's previous studio albums. So, nine years later, here it finally is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments to come soon FrB.TG (talk) 10:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: hope you are well, just wondering if you still hoped to take a look at this article....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I was waiting for Your Power to finish their review before I start mine.
Be consistent with the Oxford comma. Places like "Hit-Boy, Doc McKinney, Danja, Surkin and The Partysquad" use it while others like "Bring the Noize", "Come Walk with Me", and "Y.A.L.A." don't.
"reportedly featured input from WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange" - reportedly indicates an expression of doubt when M.I.A. herself confirmed it. I see no reason that the artist herself would lie about something like this.
"The album received highly positive reviews from critics, many of whom cited it as a return to form" - whose return to form?
"She made a decision to" -> "She decided to"
However, she said it does not have "a tranquil flute massage sound." Full stop after the quotation mark after MOS:LQ.
"Despite an initial mixed review, Pitchfork ranked the album at number 46" - although the review and the ranking are both from Pitchfork, they came from different critics so I would leave the "mixed" part out. FrB.TG (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I will not be able to do a full prose review of the article, but I still wanted to help in some way. My comments on the images and audio sample are below:
For File:Matangi.jpg, I would alter the caption to avoid starting with "The artist" as I find that phrasing to be awkward. Shortening the image caption may also help prevent it from cutting across section headings. I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to this image as well. Everything looks appropriate for the image on the Wikimedia Commons end.
File:Bad Girls - MIA.ogg needs a stronger justification for inclusion. It is encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimum and to the best of my understanding, audio samples should only be used in an album article if they are somehow representative of the album as a whole and illustrate something the prose cannot alone (like critics saying a certain song represents a genre, production choice, etc. throughout the entire album). This audio sample is more focused on the individual song rather than the album.
Do you think the article would benefit from including an image of M.I.A., preferably from around the album's release?
This is not related to the image or audio sample, but I was surprised that the article does not a legacy or impact section (á la 1989). Was there any kind of retrospective articles or analysis of this album?
I hope that this review was helpful. Apologies for not being able to do a full prose review. To summarize my comments above, I would encourage you to add WP:ALT text to both images, revise the Matangi image caption, and either remove or provide a different rationale for the audio sample. The last two bullet points are clarification questions. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: - thanks for your comments. I'll address the first three in due course but re: the last one, I couldn't find anything of note. The album was not a major success (only one week in the UK albums chart), is not one that has been a major influence on any other artists as far as I can see, did not boost M.I.A. to greater success like that Taylor Swift album did for her (her career was already on a downward trajectory, TBH), and has not really been written about in any significant way since its initial period of release. Her first album was featured in a book published years later called something like "Albums You Must Hear Before You Die" but nobody really looks at this one in the same way.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I was surprised because I remember "Bad Girls" just being everywhere at the time, but this is probably a case of me confusing that with the album having a greater sense of importance. If anything, that song may have a more long-lasting legacy than the album. I appreciate that you took the time to answer this question. Your explanation makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All other points now addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. File:M.I.A. - Festival Primavera Fauna 2013.jpg checks out to me. I would recommend archiving the source link and adding an author link to user's main Flickr account, but neither of these points are requirements. If you ever want to add an audio sample to the article, please let me know. I have briefly scanned through the article, and the Jim Carroll review would provide a solid justification for "Bad Girls" as an example of the album's "hard-bodied pop tracks" or the Alexis Petridis review identifies "Bring the Noize" as representative of the album. Either way, this passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
M.I.A. is addressed as a recording artist here, as a rapper and hip hop artist on previous album articles, and as a "rapper and singer" on her biography. I was curious which one you think is the most appropriate one and it should probably be consistent.
"Matangi did, however, top the US Dance/Electronic Albums chart" - I've been advised against the usage of "however" on some nominations
"The song "Y.A.L.A.", ..., was seen as a response to the slogan ..." - Was this the perception of critics? This could be more clearly stated
"Matangi was originally teased when M.I.A. posted a photo of herself in the studio in November 2011, on TwitPic" => "M.I.A. originally teased Matangi by posting a photo of herself in the studio on TwitPic in November 2011"
"Internationally, Matangi attained moderate impact on the charts, reaching number 47" - The middle part probably constitutes original research unless directly stated by a secondary source and should be removed. Which would leave this as "Internationally, Matangi reached number 47 ..."
Glad to see you take on something music related! That's all from me :-)--NØ 17:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris! With all the help you've extended in my previous two FACs I find it fair that I finally review one of yours :-) I have one up right now if you're interested!
Maaaany sources here need archive links. Some like the WaPo source and the RS source are dead.
I've replaced all the dead links. I'll keep trying to run the bot to archive the ones which aren't dead, but I don't believe this is a requirement for FAC..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some OR concerns:
"M.I.A. Blasts Oprah..." does not explicitly say Maya tanked commercially compared to her previous albums. All we get is "M.I.A.'s new album /\/\ /\ Y /\ drops from No. 9 to No. 34 in its second week on the Billboard 200, selling 11,000 copies, according to Nielsen Soundscan (down 61%)."
The three sources cited before that do say that Maya received mixed-negative reviews as the current article implies, but none of them say that her albums before that received critical acclaim.
Sources replaced
The critical reception section could use work.
Too many quotations for comfort.
WP:RECEPTION try to consolidate similar comments from varying reviews instead of paraphrasing every review you used. In other words, summarize the reviews as a whole and not the reviews individually. For example, write "Gavin Haynes of NME and Alexis Petridis of The Guardian praised the album for its nonconformity to the characteristics of mainstream music" instead of paraphrasing whatever specific comments they made.
Both the above addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Following this, the artist [M.I.A.]... The rapper [M.I.A.] has been..." -> let me preface this comment by saying that this is completely optional and you don't really have to implement it since a lot of it has to do with stylistic preference. I'm not a fan of WP:ELEVAR such as this one; this writing style is more for the realm of magazines and newspapers than encyclopedias. Either we use her name or her pronouns.
"experienced a period during which she struggled to find motivation to make music" this is a lot of words to simply say "Following this, M.I.A. struggled to find motivation for new music." Verbosity is a recurring aspect of this article - "originally teased", "the first by M.I.A.", "She eventually found initial inspiration".
"allegedly featured input... M.I.A. contended... who purportedly..." this is pretty strong and aggressive wording, portraying the claim that Assange helped M.I.A. with the album as something outrageous. Is there any reason why we should doubt whatever M.I.A. is saying about her own album's recording? Can't we simply say "M.I.A. said" ?
Can we clarify in the prose (or in a footnote, if you wish) why M.I.A. and Diplo were in dispute? This seems like an interesting thing that begs to be explained.
For an album inspired heavily by Hinduism I expected to see which songs tackle the relevant themes. Which songs deal with karma, for example? Which songs incorporate the om chant? Are there any other themes explored on this album?
@ChrisTheDude, whoops my bad. Thanks for pointing that out. I meant to say that there are a couple unwieldy sentences in that article, such as that one. I see that you have already split the sentence I mentioned, which is a good start. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 10:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 11 has "NME" in publisher but all other NME sources put it in work
My primary concerns have to do with sourcing and the professional tone of the prose. I have not done a full spot check of the article references, but if anyone deems it necessary then by all means. Currently, I do not feel confident to offer my support - I am leaning oppose. Sincerely hope this gets addressed promptly - I may do a proper, full review of the article once these initial concerns are struck. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 08:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing...
"Despite the positive critical reception and its inclusion in several year-end lists, its first-week sales were significantly lower than those of M.I.A.'s previous album, and its chart peak was lower in all major markets" see the OR concern above. Even if this were verified, commercial success and critical success are not mutually inclusive (look at whatever Drake is doing) so there is no need to contrast the two information.
I read in passing somewhere that M.I.A. infuses a lot of her music with political commentary. Can we clarify this context in the background so the last sentence of the "Recording" section does not seem random?
I read the Fader interview a bit and it tells me that M.I.A. was inspired by stories of female spirituality in particular while making the album. The article needs to elaborate on which songs tackle these themes in the "Music and lyrics" section. I can see that there are lots of tracks that have not been discussed here - maybe those are the songs that employ such themes?
"it was eventually pushed back by M.I.A.'s label, which claimed the record was 'too positive'." What is this supposed to mean? I'd elaborate or remove it altogether.
Mentioning that Diplo provided no contributions to the album whilst failing to mention the album's many contributors which are listed in the lead feels off
This article is about Matangi. It is out of place to mention that "Bad Girls" first appeared in a mixtape before this album and that that version sounded different.
"which led M.I.A., whose real name is Mathangi [sic] Arulpragasam, to choose the latter as the album's official name." Three things
Why is there a [sic] there?
It was meant to reflect the fact that her name is not spelt exactly the same as the album title, but I guess it's no big deal so I removed it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
M.I.A. picking the album's title should be in "background and recording", not "release and artwork" IMO.
The cited Fact source does not explicitly state that M.I.A. chose Matangi as the title because it matches her real name. Other sources say she does, however, so replace the Fact one.
I have done copyediting (diff) on the article to address sentence length, verbose wording, active voice, and flow and cohesion of paragraphs. I added some information I found from the currently cited sources as well. Please feel free to make further amendments to these edits or revert some of them if you find them unhelpful.
@Your Power: just as an update, I believe the only things outstanding are adding some more about lyrical themes and sorting out the archive links. I tried running the IABot to archive the existing sources but it didn't do anything, don't know if I am doing something wrong......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: it tends to do that for me as well. Unfortunately it seems that someone would have to do the archiving manually. Anyways, I have done another round of copyediting+addition of new content in light of the recent additions you made to the article. As always feel free to revert ones with which you disagree. With that, some more comments - I am really sorry that my review has dragged this far!
"Her fans gave her two ideas" the tweet by itself seems to indicate it's the other direction?
I doubt PopCrush is a high-quality source to use here, which means that the bit about the "car imagery" (which that source supports) can be cut
The "Reviewing the album track by track..." line is barely understandable and IMO does not add anything of value to the article.
Re. third paragraph of reception section: again, the use of "noted" here is discouraged. Also I have difficulty tracking what that sentence is supposed to mean.
That should be all, hopefully Appreciate all the effort undertaken to tidy up this article. A bit of a tangent, but I've seen a lot of memes with the caption "live fast die young bad girls do it well" within the past two years, and it only occurred to me where that line came from after reading this article. Huh. The more you know. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 13:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All of those last few points addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Power: I think I have addressed every point above to the best of my ability, would you be able to re-visit.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ChrisTheDude - you really worked your butt off with this article, wow! You deserve your 10s - the article has improved significantly compared to when I first arrived here! The only thing holding back a support from me is this bit from the lead: " 'Bad Girls' ... became one of M.I.A.'s most successful singles." That requires explicit attribution somewhere in the prose and I just don't see it. As much as I want to see the archived versions of the source links, I understand that it is beyond the scope of my intended prose review; thus it won't really stop me from supporting once the last concern is addressed. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 05:30, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Power: - I just deleted that claim as upon reflection I think it was questionable (it was only her fourth biggest hit in the UK, for example) and re-worked the sentence -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, that last pressing concern has been addressed! After a lot of reading and commenting I am confident to say I can now support this article based on the prose quality and comprehensiveness. Nice work! Hope to see you work on more music articles soon; love to see you branching out into new topics. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?" 📝 "Don't get complacent..." 07:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Your Power: thanks for your support. Just to note, while I haven't done much related to music here at FAC, over at FLC I have successfully promoted over 80 music-related lists :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Matangi's first-week sales were significantly lower than those of M.I.A.'s previous album, and its chart peak was lower in all major markets." - source?
Removed the bit about sales, the other bit is (now) sourced in the commercial performance section -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN1 is missing author. Ditto FN19, check throughout
Fixed 1, 19 and one other. Didn't find any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN63: author name doesn't match source. Ditto 54, check throughout
Fixed those, didn't find any others -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check formatting of nested quote marks. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - unsure what the last point means, please could you clarify.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When a title contains quotation marks (eg FN35), you end up getting a string of double-quotes. These should instead be nested per WP:QWQ. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still missing author for Fn67 - in cases like this it's reasonable to just list the author for the specific entry, although if you'd prefer all of them that's fine too. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: with three supports on prose and completed source and image reviews on this nom, would it be OK to start another one? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting to this FAC earlier. I hope my comments below are helpful:
Is there a reason why the lead starts with a two-sentence paragraph? I have not seen album FAs use this structure. It looks and reads choppy to me, but that could be a matter of personal preference.
Would it be possible to add more information to the lead about the album's delayed release? This information is mentioned in relation to the singles, but it feels like I am missing information.
The lead only mentions the positive reviews even though there's an entire paragraph in the "Critical reception" section focused on more critical reviews.
I am uncertain about this sentence: It was included in several publications' year-end lists of the best albums of 2013, but its chart peak was lower on the main album chart of both the UK and United States. It puts two pieces of information in relation to each other, but an album's placement on a year-end list does not really have any bearing on its chart performance.
Is there a reason why the lead only mentions the US and UK charts? I do not think every country should be named, but I was wondering if there was space for a broad sentence on its chart placement in other countries. It just seems odd to only focus on two countries.
Does the experimental hip-hop genre need a citation in the infobox? Is it considered controversial enough to require a citation here rather than sourcing it just through the article?
I'd move the Matangi image to the left to avoid potential interference with the infobox in certain views.
My comments are focused on the lead and the infobox, apart from a comment on an image. Once everything has been addressed above, I will read through the rest of the article and add more to my review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see this part (many of whom cited it as a return to form for M.I.A. compared to Maya (2010), her previous album) supported in the article. In the "Critical reception" section, I only see one critic (Jem Aswad of Spin) make this point.
Apologies if this is super obvious, but where is 2010–2013 recording dates sourced in the article? I am likely just reading over it, but I wanted to make sure it was present and sourced in the article.
I believe the first sentence of the "Background and recording" section would benefit from further revision. I would avoid using "works" in this way as I was told it is too vague, although I understand its use to avoid repeating "albums".
This part (Following this, she struggled) makes it seem like she struggled because of Maya's critical/commercial performance, but the citation has her saying she wanted to change her creative process which she found "really saturated and predictable".
Citation 4 is being used to support the Google Search sentence, but that information is not there and instead appears in Citation 5.
I believe the part on the deterioration of M.I.A.'s relationship with Diplo would benefit from further revision and clarity. A lot of information is pushed into one sentence and as someone on the outside, it is not very clear to me. For instance, I've never heard of the "critical article" in the New York Times so more information would be helpful.
The final sentence of the "Background and recording" section seems like it would make more sense in the "Release and artwork" section as it is more about the album's release than its recording.
For this part (ranked it the best song on M.I.A.'s four albums to date), I would avoid wording like "to date" as it could mean different things depending on when the readers sees it. I'd just say on "M.I.A.'s first four albums".
Would changing (the Hindu creation of the world) to (the Hindu creation myth) be helpful? I think a link would be beneficial and something about the current wording seems off to me.
I would not use (Meanwhile) as a transition outside of either plot summaries or discussing events happening at the same time.
For the Superbowl bit, why is only Madonna mentioned when M.I.A. was also performing with Nicki Minaj as well?
For this bit (a hit single by female duo), I would avoid using "hit" in this context as it is too informal for Wikipedia.
If the album does officially sample other tracks, why are none of these mentioned in the "Track listing" section?
For this part ("Atention" reportedly contains an uncredited sample of), I would attribute who reports this in the pose. Otherwise, it is unclear who is reporting this information (i.e. a critic, fans, other artists, etc.).
Do you think the "Paul Simon on acid" quote from Citation 38 would be beneficial to include in the article? I find it both interesting and reflective on how she thought the album sounded at that time.
I think the M.I.A. quote in the "Release and artwork" section could be paraphrased. I could understand some parts of the quote being used (like "too positive"), but I do not see the need for the entire quote.
I have a question about this part (The label responded by announcing the album's official release date as 5 November.). Since the album was ultimately released on 1 November, could the earlier release be mentioned in the prose?
The "Promotion" section appears to be missing some information (like about the music videos, the critical reception, live performances etc.). This section should be an overview of this information, but it feels like a lot is missing.
I would rewrite the first sentence of the "Promotion" section as I think there would be a better and clearer way to introduce this information. It reads like people should already be familiar with M.I.A.'s work and as someone who is not, it took me by surprise and I was confused by this "new recording" when the original recording was not introduced first.
For "Bad Girls", why is only (number 43 on the UK Singles Chart) mentioned when it did chart elsewhere as well?
The "Promotion" section does not mention "Sexodus" being a single.
I hope these comments are helpful. My review goes up to the end of the "Promotion" section. I think you have done a lot of wonderful work with the article, but I do think the "Promotion" section needs a significant amount of work. I also think an audio sample would be very beneficial as M.I.A. has such a specific style and I have mentioned a few ways that this could be implemented in my image review. Best of luck with this FAC and I will continue my review once everything's addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: thanks for your comments. I have tried to address all of the above. I am slightly confused though when you say that the Promotion section should give an overview of critical reception. Do you mean it should summarise the critical reception section immediately below? Or am I misunderstanding.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review and for addressing everything so far. That is a fair question. I meant more giving an overview on how the single was individually received in reviews as the critical reception section would be more focused on how the album was received as a whole. That being said, when I look through other album FAs, I do not see this kind of thing being done often so this could just be a matter of personal preference and I will leave that up to you. Aoba47 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question about this part (M.I.A. primarily handled the production for Matangi with). It gives me the impression that M.I.A. produced a substantial portion of the album, but from reading the track listing, she has only produced one song. I was curious if I was possibly misreading this part?
Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, I would italicize album titles in the citation titles. It was something that I only learned about recently lol.
How are websites and publishers linked in the citations? I am only wondering since The Guardian is not linked in Citation 3. Is it a case where the websites/publishers are linked in all instances or on the first instance (and both are valid choices so I will leave that up to your personal preference of course).
Would it be possible to avoid using Amazon as a citation? From my experience, it has been discouraged to use it as a source in a FA context.
Citation 43 appears as an error message for me.
M.I.A. should be linked in Citation 37. I would double-check the citations to make sure authors with links have their appropriate link).
This should cover everything, but I will read through the article a few more times tomorrow to just make sure I have not missed anything. Thank you again for your patience with my review, and I hope I am not being too much of a bother. It is great to see more representation in the FA -space. While I have tons of issues with M.I.A., I hope this FAC encourages editors to nominate more diverse styles of music in this space. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: - all done bar Amazon. I couldn't find an alternative source for the specific release dates sourced to Amazon - should I just remove them? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. Upon further reflection, the Amazon citations should be fine. It is preferable to have this information in the article in some capacity and since these citations already passed through the source review, they should not be an issue for my review. Aoba47 (talk) 16:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is my last question/comment for my review before I support the article for promotion. Citation 82 includes a long list of authors. The citation itself only uses NME as the by-line, although these writers are all individually credited in their individual write-ups on the albums. This is unlike Citation 80 which does list all of these authors in ths article's by-line. Citation 82 is more in-line with Citation 77, and I think like Citation 77, it should not have any author attached to it because the current structure is not an accurate representation of the by-line in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: - done - I had somehow failed to notice that there were initials at the end of each little write-up showing who specifically wrote it..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It happens to the best of us. That is the point of the FAC process anyway to point out these kinds of things we miss. That being said, I do not think the citation should have Leonie Cooper as the author since she is not the main author of the list and I believe the current structure gives that impression. I would not have an author attached to it because the publication did not specify any of the authors as the primary one in the by-line. Aoba47 (talk) 16:19, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. Best of luck with this FAC and have a wonderful start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, 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. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Appreciate all the effort undertaken to tidy up this article. A bit of a tangent, but I've seen a lot of memes with the caption "live fast die young bad girls do it well" within the past two years, and it only occurred to me where that line came from after reading this article. Huh. The more you know. Your Power 🐍 💬 "What did I tell you?"
