Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Love for Sale (Bilal album)/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2021 [1].

Love for Sale (Bilal album)

edit
Nominator(s): isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an unreleased album by the singer-songwriter Bilal, recorded in the early 2000s at Electric Lady Studios during the height of the studio's Soulquarians era. A darker, experimental departure from the neo soul music of his first album, Love for Sale was resisted by the singer's record label and controversially shelved after an unfinished mix leaked online in 2006, changing the course of his career while becoming a cult classic among black-music fans. This article was recently (and thoroughly) reviewed by Kyle Peake for good-article nomination, making it ready for review here, in my opinion. isento (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kyle Peake

edit

This article looks to be in amazing shape, having only improved if anything since my review that helped improve it to a strong degree! It would be not only incredible, but also deserved of Isento for this article to become a FA. --K. Peake 06:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Ealdgyth

edit
Do you have any follow-up comments @Ealdgyth:? isento (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck some above, but the problem with interviews isn't being primary but the reliabilty of the actual interviewer and the site publishing the interview. See User:Ealdgyth/FAC cheatsheet#New FAC stuff for some helpful advice. I am sensitive to the fact that this isn't an subject area that is going to have big academic tomes written on it, but we do still need to be mindful of the FA criteria as well as the general WP:RS policies. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that reference @Ealdgyth:. I believe I've demonstrated criteria described at your page for most of the above sources, with more commentary added since. But please take me through them, one by one, if more is needed to make a better determination. I don't think any of them fall into the adage "Not everything you read is true", if the question about the interviews is whether they were accurately recorded or not, or if they are even real to begin with. isento (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck a few more but the others I'm not persuaded by. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I understand. I would like to continue examining each of the rest further one by one, with additional research, and respond to your reservations. isento (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll throw in Gearslutz, which is listed in the Bibliography as an "interview" but is in fact a page from an online chat forum. EddieHugh (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source is under the site's Expert Q & A section, which fits the definition of an interview. The site is actually reputable, even referenced in various articles at Google Scholar and Google News, and Elevado is a verified contributor, even has recommended it as a source of research for audio recording topics. isento (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elevado's statements are attributed to him as a primary source in the article. He is not used beyond those few sentences. isento (talk) 04:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So we're confident that whoever posted on that forum was Russell Elevado? EddieHugh (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. He is the only poster with that name there, and he confirms the location of his posting on the site in the Red Bull interview I linked earlier. isento (talk) 14:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. It looks ok for how it has been used in this article. EddieHugh (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. Isento, I would suggest concentrating your efforts on addressing Ealdgyth's concerns. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild:, I have concentrated my efforts here. I've responded to each of the remaining sources since Ealdgyth's last response prior to responding to you, and have asked for them to go through each source one by one for an adequate explanation of the concern in light of my additional supporting material. But the recent response feels like a hand-wave dismissal. And for them to suggest that AllMusic and Kellman are still a concern -- even though they appear all over Google Scholar, and Kellman in particular has been published in music publications and referenced in music reference books -- is ridiculous. In general, I believe I have demonstrated multiples of what their FAC cheat sheet demands: "news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. ... backed by a media company/university/institute ... the author is a noted expert in their field ... the author is actually a member of the press." Unless I have missed something, in which case it would be appropriate to point it out to me in each concerning source. For an interview published on a site like Warren's, the fact-checking issue pointed out at the cheat sheet isn't relevant if all I'm citing from that interview is Bilal's own words, as a primary source, in but a few sentences in this article. Otherwise, I am not citing any claim from Warren. And most of the other remaining sources listed above are used sparingly or once or twice and in appropriate context in the article. I would recommend a more nuanced approach to adjudging their quality here. isento (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I know that Ealdgyth has been largely out of action for a day or two and snuck that response in as a favour for me. They won't be free for any extensive work until Saturday. So if you think that you have done as much as you can, be patient and we'll see what the verdict is then. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. I understand. That is fine. I was not demanding immediate inspection. My reason for messaging you was just the concern for the craziness below. isento (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nuh-uh, Gog, not fair enough. The nom's free to disagree with reviewer perspectives, but the post above was rude and inappropriate. I would encourage them to withdraw and apologize for the personal commentary which was out of line before requesting more source reviewer time. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The original source reviewer's comments said no spot checks were done and, in regards to some of the remaining sources above, "leave this one out for other reviewers to decide for themselves". I don't know what was supposed to be done with conclusions like that, which is why I suggested a second opinion along with the spot check request. I'm not dignifying the other remarks on my remarks. isento (talk) 17:20, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe Ealdgyth's judgements here have been based more in their own "cheat sheet" than with Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC#High quality. Sometimes they've simply glossed over the material I've collected to support the criteria of even their own "cheat sheet" standards. They have lacked nuance and respect for much further investigation in certain cases, especially in the case of Kellman and AllMusic. I've noted credential upon credential for Kellman to establish his expertise and quality, and here is yet another one: he wrote for Billboard and was cited in a piece for the Smithsonian. Aliya Ewing is also clearly an expert in this field, supported by a publication, etc. If my tone was a bit intense earlier, my apologies - as I said, there was other craziness below here to deal with. And I respect the fact that there are numerous other FAC's needing source reviews. Which is why I put in the time and effort into collecting all that information above, and not for it to be limited to perfunctory responses like this. isento (talk) 05:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ealdgyth has said they would "probably oppose" on this issue. Which makes my defense crucial, especially since WP:FARS says the concept of "high quality" has to be flexibly applied ... particularly in the various fields of sport or popular culture, "high quality" often has to be interpreted as "best available". Look at the credentials and links I've offered above, and you'll see that Kellman, Ewing, and Larrier's The Shadow League are all pretty high quality in this context. isento (talk) 05:57, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:FARS is not any more "official" than Ealdgyth's page; they are both essays by frequent FAC source reviewers, although the author of FARS is unfortunately now deceased. As I said, you're welcome to disagree with her assessment; my objection was to the way you did so. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • As Nikkimaria pointed out, WP:FARS has the same standing as my own essay. I am not bound by either, but I set mine out as a help to nominators. At this point, I'm not persuaded by any of the rest of the sourcing, and will have to relunctantly oppose on sourcing. I'll also note that I have taken account of the fact of the subject matter - we should use the "best available" not "everything we can find". I've indeed struck some (even most) of my initial concerns, but I am still concerned about the rest and thus the oppose. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, you are wrong in suggesting (if you are) that sources like Kellman's Bilal bio and Larrier's piece on him and the album are not among "the best available". I am willing to remove the few citations to Warren, since it is repeating detail of more reliably-sourced content and not essential. But I cannot remove Kellman and Larrier, or Ewing, especially since they are undoubtedly reliable. And you have not explicated your doubts at any point on each. Which is disappointing in a reviewer here and justifies my ask for a second opinion. isento (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to revisit - I acknowledge that there are only a few spots of disagreement, but I stand by my oppose - I do not think the remaining contentious sources meet the high quality criteria as set forth in the FAC criteria. And I do not feel that I've been unwilling to be persuaded - there are a number of sources that I questioned that I've been persuaded that do meet the criteria given the subject area. Please don't badger me about this - I have my opinion, I've set it forth, and it's for other reveiwers and the coords to decide if it's valid or not. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You were not asked to revisit this. You were asked if you have any further remarks to give, considering you told me a few weeks ago that you'd "reply more in depth". And you still haven't. I am sorry if you consider holding you to your word an attempt to "badger" you. isento (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been asked to revisit, as a coordinator. For whatever reason, Ealdgyth seems to have been generous with what they have accepted as high quality. The areas on which they are opposing seem well founded. Until and unless they are resolved I do not see this article being promoted, on this or any future nomination. I would note in passing that I very much doubt that any future nomination would find as forgiving a source reviewer as this one has. I am also "restarting the clock" for archiving as noted in the coordinator comment below. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You volunteered revisiting. I didn't ask you to begin with. I doubt a source reviewer would come around next time to be as foolish as to question the quality and reliability of AllMusic or Andy Kellman. To quote another reviewer below, WP:RSP is clear: 'There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution.' ... WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and saying it is unreliable because it is hosted by a yellow website is merely an incorrect opinion on the subject and not an objective assessment of the writer." I don't want mysterious forgiveness; I want engagement with the material so I can trust some thought went into the assessment. As of now, I don't trust much did from either of you. You want to dismiss this merely as frustration, that will be another incorrect opinion. isento (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT biscuit

edit
Resolved comments from User:DMT biscuit

In conclusion, a very good article that needs a little tinkering and further detail. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review and the positive feedback, @DMT biscuit:. I've responded above to your points. isento (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the support @DMT biscuit:. But, in the process of investigating some of your concerns, I wandered upon a few sources that led me to expand the article a bit here. Can you assess these changes or confirm your support in light of this addition? isento (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. From what I can see the only new inclusion is the inside pulse source. From the examination of it, I do conclude that it is not a reliable source. The writer does not seem to be well-versed in high-quality sources—mentioning that his previous occupation was for 411Mania. It also lacks an about us page making it impossible to verify the structure and professionalism, present. If removed my stance will be the same.
While this discussion is happening I noticed that the userscript User:Headbomb/unreliable has identified two sources as unreliable: The Moptop Maven and the CHRY 105.5 FM Music Department. I assumed these would be hashed out in the source review but it seems not. The Maven particularly seems unreliable it's just the personal blog of one person, who makes no claims of expertise, a la Robert Christgau. This is the same vein of Anthony Fantano who despite being the most popular music critic is not allowed to be cited due to his reviews being self-published. I would recommend this being removed. The second source i am more likely to let slide provide you give sufficient reasoning. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the Maven and CHRY sources, along with the accompanying text. As for Inside Pulse, the site does appear reliable enough to be included by Google News and is verified by Muckrack, which profiles John Babos, the editor-in-chief, among others. While primarily a comics journalist, Erhardt also wrote columns for Inside Pulse's music webzine Moodspins and TV section Primetimepulse. His review text adds good detail to the paragraph on lyrics in Music and lyrics, and to the paragraph on the album's online acclaim, particularly as an example of the extent to which the leak's popularity crossed over. (Note: 411 Mania is also Google-News approved and Muckrack verified). isento (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that's sufficient reasoning. My verdict still stands. DMT biscuit (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vmavanti

edit

This person isn't a jazz musician. My guess is R&B, not jazz. I request that references to jazz be removed unless reliable sources proving he is a jazz musician can be found. Thanks.
Vmavanti (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read this article, or even the singer's? There are reliable sources attributed to those references to jazz. And nothing refers to him outright as a "jazz musician". isento (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic calls him a jazz vocalist ([30]), as do numerous other reliable sources out there. isento (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a jazz and soul singer" ([31] Jesse Thorn, NPR)
  • "much of [Love for Sale is] based around his signature sound as a trained jazz vocalist" ([32] Jonathan Cunningham, Detroit Metro Times)
  • "soul, jazz and R&B impresario ... catapult[ed] himself into the holy ranks of jazz and soul crossover vocalists" ([33] Eric Tullis, Indy Week)
  • "his performances usually extend beyond jazz and even soul" ([34] Peter Margasak, Chicago Reader)
  • "The album showcased Bilal as more than just a neo soul singer, with forays into jazz and blues" (The Urban Daily)

isento (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"based around his signature sound as a jazz vocalist". Does this mean anything? What is his signature sound? If he is a jazz vocalist, then is this a jazz album?
"holy ranks of jazz and soul crossover vocalists". Holy? Cat out of bag. Does this mean "jazz crossover" and "soul crossover". Neither genre exists. Bow down to ambiguity.
"more than just a neo soul singer" Why neo-soul instead of soul, and what's wrong with being either one? Why "just"? What's elevated about jazz? It came out of the brothels of New Orleans. "his performances usually extend beyond jazz and even soul" Does performances refer to concerts or albums or this unreleased album or none of the above? And "beyond jazz and even soul" means what? "Forays into jazz and blues" What does this mean? I would like to see some specifics. Where do these forays occur? Does a foray into anything mean one can steal it the title and claim it as one's own? If I played basketball as a kid, does that make me a basketball player for life? Or does it have a clear definition? I'm supposed to accept these mushy-headed statements as reliable sources regarding facts? That's wishful thinking, an article of faith. The will and desire to make something true although it really isn't.
Vmavanti (talk) 08:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the sentence reads "One of a kind R&B/jazz vocalist". There's our friend the slash again, celebrating ambiguity. I don't know what the write means by "R&B/jazz vocalist" given that those two genre, properly understood, have little to do with each other. Elsewhere on that linked page he is labeled "R&B" under Genre and under "Styles": Alternative R&B, Contemporary R&B, Neo-soul, and Adult Contemporary R&B. The infobox for this article calls the album "jazz fusion", a genre that combines rock with jazz. So that adds another genre to the debate: rock. I didn't know this guy is also being called a rock musician. Maybe he is so profound he can do everything, or at least that's the impression sent by this article.
Vmavanti (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In your edit summary you called my comment "misguided". I would like to hear you defend that accusation in specific detail. The infobox says "jazz". I would like to see that removed. He isn't a jazz musician and this isn't a jazz album. If you put "jazz" in the infobox, you are saying this is a jazz album. It isn't. It's an unreleased R&B album by an R&B musician. This is a typical Wikipedia article where a fan tries to elevate something insignificant merely by insisting it is significant. It's a mistake to love protocol more than common sense. "On occasional trips to the city's jazz clubs with his father, he witnessed the working habits and lifestyles of musicians, which inspired him to pursue music seriously." What habits? What "lifestyles"? What does "language" refer to in "music theory and language". What does "connecting with" mean? That's slang. "Buzz" is a slang term that has no place in Wikipedia. Why is it a contract "from" Interscope rather than contract "with" Interscope? Was it a gift from them? Or was it a deal, an exchange? Why use "tenure" in "tenure at Interscope"? How did they "pressure" him? "I was trying to come from a jazz perspective." What does this mean? "Expand his fanbase" is slang. Why neo-soul rather than soul? Is this album soul, neo-soul, R&B, or jazz? It can't be all of them. Choose. And that's merely sentences after talking about his "alternative-rock style demos". Where they alternative rock demos? And how is that different from alternative rock "style" demos. I could go on.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a considerable influence/merging between/on hip hop/r&b from jazz and vice versa in the last decade. Bilal's contributions to the seminal jazz album To Pimp a Butterfly and his work with Robert Glasper certainly underline this. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's telling that in your attempt to explain you fall back on slashes and vague references to imaginary, hybrid forms of music that lack names or definition. One of the jobs of an editor is to replace ambiguity with clarity. It's your opinion that To Pimp a Butterfly is a "seminal jazz album". We don't deal in opinion on Wikipedia. We deal in boring facts. If you are interested in opinions, movements, causes, idealism, romanticism, and boosterism, you shouldn't be editing on Wikipedia. This isn't a jazz album. It's dishonest to hint/suggest/imply that it may be/might be/could be/influenced by/wants to be/smells like/was in the same room as...jazz.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When we write about art on Wikipedia, the only 'facts' we can cite are other peoples opinions. Wikipedia is inherently an idealistic project. "Imagine a world where the sum etc...". Every time someone says of an album 'that's not jazz', that when the next musical revolution begins. No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"When we write about art on Wikipedia" — You're not writing about art. You are writing about R&B music. Artists uses paint brushes. "the only 'facts' we can cite are other peoples opinions"— Wrong. I don't know where you got that idea but you should drop it. Wikipedia is not in the opinion business. Facts differ from opinions. Facts actually exist and thus don't need limp quotation marks around them suggesting that they do not. You should be writing facts, not quoting opinions, no matter what the subject of the article. "Wikipedia is inherently an idealistic project" — To the degree that Wikipedia continues to exist as a reference work, an impartial encyclopedia, this comment is wrong. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. It's not the place to inject your opinions or your feelings about life. "Every time someone says of an album 'that's not jazz', that when the next musical revolution begins"— This is another arbitrary, frivolous remark that really doesn't mean much of anything. It's irrelevant to this article and irrelevant to Wikipedia. Let's not make virtues of ambiguity, ignorance, confusion, hope, and wishful thinking.
Vmavanti (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- I was pinged on my talk page to look at this discussion. There seems to be a lot of focus on whether the artist is considered a jazz musician or not. That's a concern for the artist's article, not for this article. The focus here should be what reliable sources say about the album. If reliable sources consider the album jazz, or to have jazz elements, then noting this would be reasonable. I can't see why someone not considered primarily a jazz musician couldn't create an album with jazz elements, and if the sources support that contention then so be it. The point is that the article should reflect the sources without undue weight being applied, IOW if the term jazz keeps coming up in the sources, I'd expect to see the term prominent in the WP article. If the term is less prominent in the sources then one would expect it to be less prominent in the article. Our opinions as WP editors on an album's genre or styles matters not a bit, what RSs say does. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's possible for someone who isn't a jazz musician to make a jazz album. It's possible. But I can't think of any examples off the top of my head. Linda Ronstadt's albums weren't jazz. Steve Miller? Almost. Rod Stewart? Uh, no. Jay Geils pulled it off. There's a difference between "lightning" and "lightning bug". There's a difference between "jazz" and "jazz influenced". I have seen the latter many times. Usually it means puffery, promotion, and pretense—particularly if the musician in question is approaching the end of life or looking for work. I'm not here to sell albums. I'm not here to sink albums.
Vmavanti (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The genre field in the infobox "should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article" (Template:Infobox album#genre). I don't see a source cited that clearly states 'this is an X album', for "jazz fusion", "blues rock" or "avant-garde" (is this really a genre?), and I haven't looked for the others. I see "inflections", "closer to", "arrangements drawn from", "perspective", "directions of"... even the "progressive jazz" line is "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" in the source. There's an impressive array of sources, and they're saying, overall, that this is something unusual, original, influenced by lots of things, and that it's not of a particular genre (or genres)... which suggests that the infobox shouldn't contain these things. EddieHugh (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that depriving this article's infobox of genres because sources opt for nuanced descriptions of the music, as opposed to rigid, singular designations phrased in explicit and simple enough terms for you (like "this is a jazz album"), is a bit short-sighted and denies readers any impression of what this music is like. The kind of standard you are expecting for editorial discretion here is usually reserved for cases where there are too many genres to pick from sources, or when there is a controversy among sources explicitly disagreeing on genre. Not only does that quote you cited ("love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock") support those particular genres, but the other details cited in the article -- radical and unorthodox rhythms, free-form composition, experimental song structures -- add credence to the fusion and avant-garde designations, as merely soul or funk -- traditionally simple three-minute songs of popular music -- would not capture adequately what this music is, according to what's been cited in the article. isento (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In short, I don't agree with your interpretation of the genre guideline as demanding a source categorize the album rigidly or singularly. And in this particular case, I don't think following such an approach would improve the article, even if it were a rule. isento (talk) 04:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "demanding a source categorize the album rigidly or singularly". I was saying, quoting Infobox album#genre, that, for any genre specified in the infobox, cited sources should state what genre(s) a recording is part of. I also gave a summary of what the sources are actually saying, which isn't 'this is a [genre] album'. A solution I've used in these circumstances is to leave the genre field blank and let the reader... read the article (the first two paragraphs contain everything). (On the specific point, "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" doesn't say that those genres were major parts of this album.) EddieHugh (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A love affair, figuratively speaking, is defined as an intense interest or passion in something, which in my opinion makes a strong enough case to note it, along with the other discussion of jazz, fusion, and related characteristics in the article... There is actually one source that defines the music on the kind of explicit terms you're touching on, and it's Hart in Aftermath and legacy, in reference to soul. But that wouldn't do the whole of the music summary justice, to merely include that one genre in the infobox. Again, the guideline does not say to note the "major parts," because that would be a one-size-fits-all policy that would neglect the fact that album articles are not a monolith. isento (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly...figurative. That's what makes it a bullshit statement in a bullshit article. We deal in literal here, not the cloudland of figurative. On Earth, people have love affairs with people. You literally can't have a love affair with an abstraction. That kind of flowery, excessive language is what makes music articles inferior to other articles on Wikipedia. Frankly, it makes all of us look bad.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"sources opt for nuanced descriptions of the music, as opposed to rigid, singular designations phrased in explicit and simple enough terms for you (like "this is a jazz album")"—Hold on there, sport. These insults need to be refuted with facts. The first job I had when I was a teenager, long ago, was as a jazz disc jockey. EddieHugh plays piano and I played guitar in college. We both have shelves full of books about jazz. We have many years of experience editing jazz articles. Eddie is a skilled collector. Sure, these facts don't indicate we're right all time. But it does mean we deserve better treatment than repeatedly being dismissed as rigid and simple-minded. What you called "nuanced" is really an attempt to make a virtue of ambiguity and ignorance. There may be some naivete about how musicians, advertisers, and writers of articles find ways to promote topics without actually saying much about them. Sometimes people who don't know what they are doing fall back on generalizations and ambiguity, while those who deal in facts and specific arguments are dismissed as rigid, simple minded rule-mongers. Consequently, I'm not surprised that you fall back on "ignore all rules". If want nuance, how about this? There certainly is a difference between topics like jazz which involve a degree of subjectivity and interpretation. But that's different from believing, "It's all so subjective and relative that it's hopeless to figure out, so I'm going to do and say whatever I damn well please." Eddie and I deal with these subjects all the time, maybe every day. We talk about them and give them a lot of thought. What's the difference between avant-garde jazz and free jazz? What is "avant-music"? What is "avant" Anything weird? Anything an untalented person wants it to be? What is experimental music? What is progressive jazz? What is progressive rock? We have literally spent years talking about these subjects on Wikipedia. I'm going to repeat this because it is a masterpiece of brevity, precision, and accuracy:
The genre field in the infobox "should include the music genre(s) that best describes the album. It should come from a reliable source and also be stated and referenced in the body of the article" (Template:Infobox album#genre). I don't see a source cited that clearly states 'this is an X album', for "jazz fusion", "blues rock" or "avant-garde" (is this really a genre?), and I haven't looked for the others. I see "inflections", "closer to", "arrangements drawn from", "perspective", "directions of"... even the "progressive jazz" line is "began displaying Bilal's love affair with progressive jazz and electric rock" in the source.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AllMusic classifies this person as R&B. What's wrong with R&B? I heard a lot of great R&B in the 1970s. What's wrong with being an R&B singer? Or being called an R&B singer? Obviously something, or people wouldn't feel the need to "elevate" it. There's nothing elevated about jazz or any other genre of music. And it's music, by the way, not art. If you want art, go to art school. AllMusic doesn't even have an article about this album. Maybe because it was never released. So for most people it doesn't exist. Are we retreating into Harry Potter fantasyland now? Why is there an article about an album that was never released? Because a handful of people out of a world of 7.5 billion want to promote it? That's not a good enough reason.
Vmavanti (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

edit
  • Blue Note image is missing alt text
  • File:Love_for_Sale_-_Bilal.jpg: not convinced this is sufficiently original to warrant copyright protection - it's not really "cover art" so much as a default press design, if I understand correctly? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:, I've added the alt text. Yes, it is a default press design. I inquired about this topic in August at the albums project talk page and was advised this was the best option. What course of action should be done if it doesn't warrant copyright protection? isento (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the one response you got was more with regards to selecting which cover design to include rather than what tagging to use?
If it doesn't warrant copyright protection the tagging will need to be changed to reflect that. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an expert on this subject. But hopefully this suffices. isento (talk) 04:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested that the original file here be deleted so that the Commons version of the same name can be used here. isento (talk) 05:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the new file and tagging @Nikkimaria:. isento (talk) 06:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from SNUGGUMS

edit
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • Not sure what you mean by "independent direction" from "a more raw and independent direction"
  • "dark, experimental nature" → "dark and experimental nature"
  • If the songs are available online, then doesn't that count as being released in some capacity?
    • The leaked songs -- which were an unfinished mix -- are available online, unofficially. The body of sources on this album tend to call it unreleased, which officially it is. So I think this distinction is appropriate for the purposes of this article. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hit" from "R&B chart hit" is subpar tone for (what's supposed to be) a professional encyclopedia
  • Perhaps "The label acquiesced in giving him" could be "The label reluctantly gave him", since I'm pretty sure readers will more easily be able to understand this form over what's currently used
  • File:Bilal - Something to Hold on To.ogg appears to comply with WP:SAMPLE
  • "he tells The Root" should be in past tense
  • Same goes for "Bilal cites this compounding conflict" as well as "recounts Larrier", and maybe "called" or "deemed" would be better terms to use for the former
  • The use of "iconic" in "an iconic reputation" feels like puffery
  • Whether fans consider this his best work seems rather minor compared to what critics think
    • The album's cult following is a dominant theme up to this point, including its success with new fans. And fans and critics, particularly those cited following the sentence, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "ahead of his time" bit just comes off as a vague form of praise (or it at is least one I could never really decipher beyond being a sign that somebody likes the person/thing described). Try saying something more specific, or just scratch it entirely.
  • Don't italicize "The Moptop Maven.com" (and remove its ".com"), "WRVU.org" (which should just read WRVU), "CHRY 105.5 FM Music Department", or "Red Bull Music Academy Daily"
    • The published titles of those first two include the domain name (.com and .org), and the other two are also websites with original content posted or published in the manner of a periodical, i.e. at regular intervals. Per MOS:ITALICWEBCITE, they should be italicized. Another note at that guideline is "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bibliography" is discouraged as an ambiguous section title per MOS:BIB
    • Per MOS:REFERENCES, that title may be confusing in a particular context, specifically when the article is a biography: "'Bibliography' may be confused with the complete list of printed works by the subject of a biography". This is not the case here. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even as an EL, I'm not convinced it's appropriate to list Discogs or WhoSampled when both are full of user-generated content
    • User-generated content is unacceptable as a source (WP:USERG). I've removed Discogs since it doesn't appear to have anything useful or beyond what's already here. But I still believe WhoSampled offers aid in the spirit of WP:ELMAYBE -- it features media that confirms reliably-sourced observations in this article about instances and elements of sampling among some of the songs. isento (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have to say. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments @SNUGGUMS:. I've made some changes and responded with rationales in defense of other content. isento (talk) 03:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I support following article improvments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro

edit
  • Honestly, the article looks great to me as it is. There's nothing I can say that would be repeating what's above. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks :) isento (talk) 21:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • In light of the mess above, I would like to ask how do you feel about the current list of genres in the infobox @Zmbro:. isento (talk) 22:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Isento I actually had a similar issue for Bowie's Blackstar in which a user pointed out that Bowie was never a jazz musician despite the infobox having jazz as a genre. It really doesn't matter if Bowie or Bilal weren't "jazz musicians" per say. Hell, Neil Peart of the rock band Rush (rest in peace) experimented with jazz styles in the 1990s despite him having a primarily progressive rock background; again, this doesn't mean he was a "jazz drummer". Anyways, if multiple sources describe Love for Sale as having elements of jazz then it's perfectly fine to have it in the infobox. Just because a genre is in the infobox of an album doesn't mean the artist themselves were musicians of that genre. – zmbro (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It matters to people with integrity who know how to use words properly and whose first interest is the reader. It matters because words matter. And if it's not a big deal, then why not remove it? Why fight it so hard? Therefore it must be a big deal, right? I don't know how many times I have to say this: "elements of jazz" is not identical to jazz, and it's such a vague statement as to be meaningless. What specifically does it mean? Just like "forays into jazz". It allows the writer to sound elevated while saying nothing, a common tactic in music journalism. Puffery, in other words. And since when does one person's feelings determine the quality of an article? Are we done with facts?
Vmavanti (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check

edit

Sandy is going to kill me for the header, but anyway. Took a spotcheck of 20 sources:

Regarding the interviews and user-generated posts Ealdgyth questioned, I am inclined to say that if we can assure that the interview/post a) wasn't altered from the original and b) it actuall comes from Bilal, they can get a pass. I don't know about the others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, thank you. isento (talk) 05:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that particularly in the various fields of sport or popular culture, "high quality" often has to be interpreted as "best available". (WP:FARS). The non-interview sources -- AllMusic's Kellman, Larrier's The Shadow League -- I have shown multiples of the criteria laid out at Ealdgyth's cheat sheet, including expertise in the field, press membership, and publication backing -- I just found Kellman cited in a piece for the Smithsonian to boot. You can scroll above to the bullet point(s) for each of those sources and see for yourself, as this page has become too sprawling for me to repeat more than is needed. But WP:FARS recommends a more flexible approach to adjudging quality here. isento (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts, feedback @Jo-Jo Eumerus:? Same worries here as expressed below. isento (talk) 05:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Along with Kellman's professional experience, another indication of his reliability is how the Philadelphia Weekly source echoes Kellman's bio, which is cited to support in this article that Bilal developed an interest in singing while growing up in Germantown and sang in the choir at the behest of his Baptist mother. The Weekly source says exactly that as well. isento (talk) 08:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Shadow League article echoes high-quality source claims as well, including the shelving, leak, and touring claims ([35] Swan in East Bay Express, [36] Gray in WBUR, [37] Cunningham in Detroit Metro Times... several other profiles cited in this article). isento (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't feel comfortable enough with the other sources to comment on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the nearly 200 shortened footnotes in the article, the remaining sources questioned above make up around 20 of those. Even if they are not high-quality, as still-reliable sources comprising a minority of sourcing, would that really prevent this article from passing a source review? isento (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Buidhe

edit

Please take the quoteboxes out. I think it disrupts the flow and gives too much weight to these short quotes, which would be better integrated into the text. (t · c) buidhe 10:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have removed two of the quoteboxes, about his live performance and about his newfound artistry in the album's aftermath. But I kept the "Love for Free" quote in the section about the leak. As I reasoned to DMT biscuit in the earlier review above: It is illustrative of a few major points throughout the article going forward, including the fact of its indefinite shelving and the crucial irony noted by multiple sources, among them Bilal himself. Quotes "may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea" (MOS:QUOTE), and I believe this one does so succinctly. And on further reflection, as far as flow, I believe it segues nicely from the events amid the delay and into the paragraphs about the leak. isento (talk) 18:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the box is pretty small and the content is on-topic with the theme of the section. I understand how the other boxes may have been distraction or conflicted with the flow of the text. But this case acts as a clever conceit, as well as a culmination of the aforementioned delays and failed release expectation. Without it, I feel that moving from the idea of its promo vinyl being manufactured (at the end of the preceding paragraph) to the preliminary mix leaking on the Internet (the beginning of the next paragraph) may feel a bit abrupt to readers. isento (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is neither a weight or POV issue. His quote is stating a fact, just in a clever turn of phrase. isento (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Feedback @Buidhe:? I worry this nomination is running out of time and patience among the delegates. isento (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the quotebox still sandwiches with an image contrary to MOS but it also gives too much prominence to this one quote. I would integrate it into the text somewhere. (t · c) buidhe 11:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it a block quote, which the template page says is ideal for short quotes. WP:WEIGHT regards viewpoints. This is hardly a viewpoint, apart from his attitude in conveying a simple yet crucial fact (crucial to the article). isento (talk) 17:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tbhotch

edit
  • The recurring theme in the section is the album remaining in "online purgatory", being "notoriously bootlegged", Bilal's adaptation (including to the phenomenon of leaks and the digital piracy era). The image is illustrative of the album's status and existence, both in those years and currently (to my knowledge, it is only available as a torrent file or as individual user-made clips on YouTube). isento (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, the general reader may not have an understanding or a visualization of album piracy (and its common method). There are several articles where that image may also be relevant: BitTorrent tracker, peer-to-peer, music piracy. But there would be less pertinence to the text of those articles, since they do not discuss this album. isento (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following words are being highlighted by Grammarly. As an automatic tool, they are not necessarily incorrect, but they should be checked:
  • "and black sunglasses playing a piano (it suggests "the piano").
  • "neo soul categorizations" ("neo-soul")
  • "He did not want to labeled as" ("label")
  • "this point become a homebase" ("home base")
  • "in contemporary neo soul" ("neo-soul")
  • "In mid 2005" (mid-2005)
  • "Love for Sale in the seven months since its leak, while noting" (suggests to remove the comma)
  • "A black man dressed in black t-shirt" ("a black")
  • "17th century literature" (17th-century literature)
  • "his vocal delivery changed by a shooting to the face"
  • "it showcased an experimentation outside" (an)
  • "crucial to honestly appraising the singer's career" ("apprise")
  • I have to say that, unlike the assessment performed by various users above, this source is reliable. WP:RSP is clear: "There is consensus that RhythmOne websites are usable for entertainment reviews with attribution." A reliable publisher won't become unreliable solely because they write in questionable websites (like Martin Meredith writing an article for The Sun), and unreliable publishers won't become reliable solely because they write in acceptable websites (like Perez Hilton writing an article for The New York Times). WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and saying it is unreliable because it is hosted by a yellow website is merely an incorrect opinion on the subject and not an objective assessment of the writer. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:28, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have copy-edited to address the above concerns, added a subtitle file to the audio sample, and left responses to a few leftover points. And thank you very much for that take on the earlier sourcing issue. isento (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

edit

isento, currently this nomination is failing its source review. I cannot see that any action has been taken to address the concerns which were confirmed more than two weeks ago. Unless they are addressed in the next two days this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wasting my energy arguing with you people anymore. The original source reviewer backed out of his word to offer more in depth replies, another a few sections above us felt uncomfortable addressing it after I asked for a second opinion, the other reviewer right above us confirmed the lack of objectivity in the original reviewer's assessment of a certain source... I had to deal with the insult of you guys mentioning my nom in connection with "quid pro quo" supports and "serious" sourcing concerns at the FAC talk page... and now this from you. Do what you want. I'll just renominate in a few weeks. Hopefully I'll get a different source reviewer who won't fail the whole of the sourcing over a handful of sources they erroneously deem of questionable quality and are too obtuse to engage in thoughtful dialogue over it. I knew this would happen. No one took it seriously when I brought it up as an issue. I even apologized for being too intense at the expense of politisse. Pfft. Why should I care at this point? Just archive it now so I can get closer to the renominate date. isento (talk) 16:39, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Love_for_Sale_(Bilal_album)/archive1&oldid=1021315654"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy