Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/3 of Hearts (album)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2018 [1].

3 of Hearts (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Following my success with putting Pru and Ho Ho Ho through the FAC process, I have decided to nominate this music-related article. It is about a teen pop and country music album by American group 3 of Hearts. The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore and was marketed towards a younger audience through the group's crossover appeal. It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville. Reviews of 3 of Hearts were mixed; some critics praised the group's vocals and image, while others criticized the songs as generic and lacking an authentic country sound.

I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this nomination. If anyone is interested, this is what the article looked like before I worked on it: here. I am honestly not a fan of the album or country music in general, but I found a teen pop approach to country music to be interesting and unique so I enjoyed research and writing this. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant[edit]

  • I understand that it is not mandatory to have a specific number of paragraphs in the lead, but you could use three here (if at all). With the first focusing in the album and the group, the second in the marketing and the genre, and the third obviously the reception. This is just my POV though.
  • I understand what you mean, but I am not certain about it. I think that separating the first paragraph of the lead into two would make two rather short paragraphs and that would look awkward at the very beginning of an article in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even though this the debut album for the band, I am not too sure about the relevance of the group's entire history in the Background section. I get most of it and how it helps weave a narrative, but it really does belong in the group's page. Although, this too is really just my POV, and you could use a second opinion here as most of the section is fairly well written and does in fact talk about the group's immediate history.
  • I understand what you mean here; I just think that it is important to include all of the information about how the group was signed to the label as this is their debut album so I would find those parts to be relevant in how the album was made. I would argue that it would make sense to this information on both the article on the debut album and the article on the group itself. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that Walmart is not mentioned anywhere in the article but the lead. You might want to cross-check and then substantiate the sponsor claim in the article's body.
  • The information is already present in the "Release and promotion" section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, the release date of the album is never directly mentioned in the relevant section. You should mention when it was released and in what formats (cassette, CD, digital download) here in prose as you do in the release history table.
  • Added. The release is directly mentioned in the "Release and promotion" section, but I have also added the formats in which the album was release. Aoba47 (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would the "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA due..." paragraph fit better in the Reception section considering the fact that it is the commercial reception being talked about. Also, the critical reception as a backdrop for the same would make a lot more sense than the marketing section. Again, POV.
  • I think that the information is best suited for the "Release and promotion" section given the quotes from Joe Galante and the information about the removal of the group from the record label actually deals more with the promotional tactics than with the sales. Sales seemed to be a partial reason, but I found more information on how the group's promotional campaign and their connection with radio audiences shaped the label's decision to remove them. Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ocean Way Nashville, never finds a mention the body or did I miss it? You could also substantiate it in the text if it is not already mentioned.
  • Added this part into the "Background and recording" section. Aoba47 (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although this is more of a query, but is the list format the preferred manner for arranging the personnel section? I am not familiar with music related articles as such, so forgive my ignorance here.
  • It is a very valid question so no worries; it is a pretty standard practice so someone can easily access all of the credits for the album at a glance. You can look at my previous articles on albums that passed through the FAC process both here and here to see what I mean regarding this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rest looks great Aoba47! Fine work, as always. NumerounovedantTalk 05:19, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Numerounovedant: Thank you for your comments; I believe that I have addressed everything. Please let me know if there is anything else that I can do to improve the article. Hope you had a wonderful start to your new year! Aoba47 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very minor: You could avoid repetiton of of in the second paragraph of the lead.
  • Again very minor: "some critics praised the group's vocals and image" - The image bit might not be as clear as one would wish (could be just me). Maybe you could say public image or media image or whatever suits it best, just to make it more specific.

I can support the article. Good luck Aoba47, have a great year! NumerounovedantTalk 06:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the help, and have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

  • "It was released on March 6, 2001, through RCA Nashville" - I'd clarify this is a record label
  • "Arizona Rain" in the lead should have a nonbreaking space
  • I am not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you clarify this? I apologize if this is obvious. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NBSP. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! Thank you for pointing that out. Not sure how I forgot that. I have revised/added this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 of Hearts was removed from RCA." - released might be better than removed
  • The tape was composed of four tracks; cover versions of songs by Canadian singer Shania Twain and American singer Martina McBride; a gospel song, and "The Star-Spangled Banner" - should be a colon, not a semicolon
  • "Stroud, McNeil, and Wasdin had received offers from four Nashville-based record labels, including RCA Nashville. They signed their record deal with RCA Nashville shortly after their high-school graduation.[2]" - why "had"? Don't think it's necessary, just received works fine.
  • "connecting them with performers Jessica Andrews, LeAnn Rimes, and Lila McCann; and the band Marshall Dyllon, but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory".[5]" - two questions with this. First, why the three artists then a semicolon then the band? and why is the last bit about his view relevant?
  • I am not sure why; I think that the semicolons were added during a copy-edit from another user. I have changed the semicolon. I would think that his opinion on the age range for country radio audiences is important as it is a theme that appears quite often in this article. The record label tried to reach a younger audience with the group, but it failed as country radio audiences are primarily older and uninterested in the group. I could remove the last bit though as I am more than open for suggestions. Just wanted to explain my rationale for when I first put it in there. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the release of the album, 3 of Hearts' song entitled "Just Might Change Your Life" " - no need for "entitled" here
  • "the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers, which were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses.[7]" - this should be a separate sentence
  • "The instrumentals include "fiddles and the big drums that mainstream country favors".[13] " - this shouldn't be a quote
  • I have paraphrased this part. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before it was preponed to March 6 that year.[13]" - think you mean postponed
  • It is not really "postponed" as it was moved ahead of its scheduled release. The word "preponed" is actually the opposite of "postponed", which makes sense in this context. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 of Hearts was the first country act Seventeen had partnered with" - reads awkwardly; rephrase so it doesn't end on "with"
  • " To further promote their music, 3 of Hearts visited radio stations, and conducted a two-hour interview with Scholastic magazine and appeared on the cover." - run-on; easily fixed by tweaking to "and appearing on the cover"
  • I feel that the interview part is important so I just made it into a separate sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the album's release, 3 of Hearts was removed from RCA " - again, I think the verb usually used is "released"
  • Both verbs are used in this context, but I have changed it according to your suggested. "Released" is just the nicer way of saying it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 of Hearts' vocals and image received praised" - typo; praise
  • "Editor Robert Pimm, writing for the American Bar Association, panned the album's content for its "bright, but shallow declarations of puppy love"." - confused why the ABA reviewed an album??
  • The ABA wrote a larger article about how record labels attempt to attract different types of audiences through their acts. I admit that I was surprised to find this source, but it is a very interesting read and shows how coverage on a certain topic can be found in surprising places. I am not sure exactly what you want me to do with this comment though. Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be worth it to clarify, either in the text or via a footnote, that this was part of a larger article about record labels and audiences. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have added a footnote about this; I am slowly learning the value of these things and I should think of them more often, especially in these types of situations. I am happy that I double-checked the source as I accidentally credited the wrong article and writer due to the way to the information is split up in the source so I have also corrected that. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is in decent shape. These are comments from a first look. ceranthor 02:45, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the comments so far. I am looking forward to the rest of your review. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 03:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Replied to two. ceranthor 03:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! I have responded to both of your responses. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. Made a few MOS changes, but I think this looks good. Support on the prose. ceranthor 01:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ssven2[edit]

  • "They had each performed independently at various venues and had aspirations to pursue music as a career." — Can be rephrased as "They had each performed independently at various venues and aspired to pursue music as a career."
  • Good point; I have revised this according to your suggestion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the name of the gospel song known anywhere?
  • Unfortunately, I could not find the name of the gospel song or the Shaina Twain and Martina McBride covers either. The only song title that I could find from their demo tape was "The Star-Spangled Banner". Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it from me, Aoba47. Other than that, I can provide my support on prose.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 13:16, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources review[edit]

  • As a general rule you give both newspaper/journal title and the publishing organisation, but in a few instances you don't (ref 1 Texas Monthly; 15 Deseret News; 18 Countryside Standard Time
  • Added publishers for everything. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 26 and 27: despite divergence in titles, the linked sources appears to be the same.
  • They are both linked to different pages. Check them again, and check the upper left corner. Reference 26 has "Hot Country Songs" and Reference 27 has "Country Airplay" as stated in the titles for the sources. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise with 28 and 29
  • See above as the same comment applies here too. Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 31: Title of newspaper missing (The Dallas Morning News)

Otherwise, sources appear to be in good order and of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 12:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review; I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

No ALT text that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for your review! I had included the following ALT text for the album artwork (An image of three young women wearing light pink clothing with the album's title in a pink font.). I am not sure why it is not showing up for you; if there is any way to improve it, then please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a Ctrl+F error, nothing more. It seems OK to me anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:00, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification; I have made far worse errors on Wikipedia lol. Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Moise[edit]

The article is generally well-written but here are some quick initial comments from my first read-through.

  • Thank you for the kind words! I enjoy working on these more obscure articles, as I feel that no one else would really pay any attention to them or work on them this far. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed several instances where the same word is repeated in close proximity (within the same sentence or the next). Could you go through the article and see how many of these you may be able to reduce? (Here is one of several examples: "The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger audience;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format".")
  • Thank you for pointing this out; I have read through the article, and I have hopefully reduced this down at least a little. Please let me know if further reduction/revision would be beneficial/appropriate. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the lead and Release and promotion sections, the word "released" is used to describe their being let go from their record label. This is of course a perfectly legitimate usage, but I felt it kind of stands out because there are so many instances of the other usage of "release", i.e., release of an album or single. How would you feel about using "let go" instead of "released"?
  • That makes sense to me. I originally had the word "removed" in this context as the record label removed the group from their roster, and I highly doubt that it would was a mutual decision. I changed "removed" to "released" based on an above suggestion, and I am more than open to changing it again to "let go" (which I have already done), but my only concern is that I feel the language borders on euphemism if that makes any sense. Aoba47 (talk) 17:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to signing 3 of Hearts, Kragen said he almost retired from music after being fired by American singer-songwriter Kenny Rogers." Did he say this prior to signing them, or did he say this later about his situation prior to signing them. The latter seems more likely, but grammatically speaking the former is implied.
  • Good catch! I have always read over this sentence without much though. I have revised it to make the meaning clearer and less ambiguous. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prior to the release of the album, 3 of Hearts' song "Just Might Change Your Life" was featured on the soundtrack for the film Where the Heart Is (2000);[1][7] the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers.[7] The samplers were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses." A little confusing. There were presumably lots of songs on the Where the Heart Is soundtrack, but the article doesn't say how many or which ones were included on the sampler, and does not say explicitly that "Just Might Change Your Life" was.
  • That is a good point. I would assume that "Just Might Change Your Life" is a part of the sampler given that the context of the article (i.e. it would be rather silly to include the information on the samplers in an article about 3 of Hearts if their song was not on said samples). I also interpreted this part from the source (i.e. "and its music was also included") as meaning that the entire album was included on the samplers. However, let me know if this is too ambiguous to support the above sentences about the sampler in the article. Just wanted to explain my reasoning behind it. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "preponed": Minor suggestion, but a couple of online sources says this word is primarily used in India. If the subject of the article was India-related and the article was meant to be in Indian English, I'd say by all means use the word. But possibly better not to use it for an American subject?
  • True; the word was actually added by an editor that did a copy-edit on the article (this individual did an absolutely wonderful job and really improved everything so I do not mean to throw this person under the bus). I have changed it for "pushed forward"; a previous reviewer on this FAC suggested "postponed", but it does not make sense in this context. On a random note, this is actually the first time that I saw the word "preponed" so it was cool to learn something new. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toni Basil, that's pretty cool she was involved with them. Maybe describe her as "singer and choreographer" (or even just "choreographer"—it's up to you). My impression is she's even more famous for her choreography than her singing.
  • I thought that it was a cool point as well! I agree that Basil is probably more well-known as a choreographer than a singer. I have added both titles as suggested. Aoba47 (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Love Is Enough" and "Arizona Rain" both made appearances on Billboard charts. "Love Is Enough" peaked at number 43 on the Hot Country Songs and the Country Airplay charts on May 19, 2001; the single remained on both charts for ten weeks.[26][27] "Arizona Rain" reached number 59 on the Hot Country Song and the Country Airplay charts on August 18, 2001, and remained on both for a week."
  • Minor issue: The first instance calls the chart "Hot Country Songs" and the second "Hot Country Song".
  • Confusing for me: Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay are separate charts, right? Or are they somehow merged to be the same numbers? It seems like a huge coincidence that each of the two songs had exactly the same chart position and number of weeks on each of both charts.
  • I definitely agree with you on that part. Having two songs appear on the same chart position for the same number of weeks and reaching their peak position at the same time is rather dubious. The Billboard website treats both charts as separate entities, as noted by the two separate references. When reading through the Wikipedia article on the Hot Country Songs chart, I noticed this sentence (This 50-position chart lists the most popular country music songs, calculated weekly by collecting airplay data from Nielsen BDS along with digital sales and streaming.), which implies to me that there is overlap between these two charts. The Country Airplay chart does not track digital sales or streaming as done by the Hot Country Songs chart, but I highly doubt that digital sales or streaming was considered with this album's rankings given the time of its release. From this information, it seems that both of the charts are tracking the same information (i.e. airplay data) and that is why they have the same data on the two songs. Due to this, I think it would probably be best to remove the Hot Country Songs information here, and just keep the Country Airplay information, but I wanted to confirm this with you first. I apologize for the length of this response. I just wanted to try and explain what I think is the cause of all of this. It is all pretty opaque and confusing to me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception section: maybe it would be worthwhile to consider paraphrasing the following, for which direct quotes don't seem necessary. There may be other direct quotes throughout the article that would be worthwhile to paraphrase, but I wasn't really looking for them in this read-through.
  • "well crafted, professionally delivered, and engaging enough on its own terms"
  • "is far from groundbreaking music"
  • "bite or attitude"
  • "some innate talent". Moisejp (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point; I have a tendency to get a little quote-happy so I have tried to reduce them throughout the article. Please let me know if further reduction/revision is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba. I should have time to continue this review on Thursday if I'm not able to get to it before. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries; thank you for helping! Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:
Lead:

  • "younger audience": Seems vague. Would "teenaged audience" be too specific? Or "teenaged and young-adult audience"? Or might any of your sources give an age range that was targeted?
  • An age range was not provided by any of the sources. I have added the above suggestion though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:23, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marketed... through the group's crossover appeal": I'm not sure that "marketed through" makes sense. Possibly something like "The album was managed by American producer Byron Gallimore; its marketing focused on the group's crossover appeal to target a teenaged audience." Moisejp (talk) 06:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording:

  • "Steve Hochman of Los Angeles Times associated 3 of Hearts with a trend towards younger country performers, connecting them with performers Jessica Andrews, LeAnn Rimes, and Lila McCann, and the band Marshall Dyllon, but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory".[5] The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger listener;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format"." This part seems to say the same thing three or four times. I also specifically found the transition to "but viewed country radio as a primarily "adult territory" " confusing and awkward. I'm not sure what the "but" is trying to say here. Moisejp (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would argue that the information is different form one another. The Los Angeles Times source focuses on how younger country artists are signed to record labels, while Ken Kragen source focuses on how the group and the album are marketed for a younger audience, which in my opinion are two separate concepts. I have decided to remove the "adult territory" part as another reviewer took issue with it as well. My original intention was to emphasize how country radio listeners are primarily adults as a way to transition into the later information on the group's removal from the record label. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba, life's been a bit busier than expected the last few days. I have noticed some more points I want to comment on but I just need a window of time where I can sit down and organize my thoughts while typing stuff up. I will try to fit in time soon. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries; take as much time as you need. I hope that nothing serious or negative is happening in your life, and good luck with all of your work! Aoba47 (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if this review is a bit scattered, but I never got a chance to reply to our discussion about Hot Country Songs and Country Airplay. You proposed "I think it would probably be best to remove the Hot Country Songs information here, and just keep the Country Airplay information, but I wanted to confirm this with you first." I agree with you this would be a good idea.
  • No worries; I am just glad that you have helped me with so many reviews so I greatly appreciate all of your help. There is really no time limit on these things so don't feel rush or anything. There are a lot of things in life that should take priority over this lol. I have removed the Hot Country Songs from the article. It was interesting to learn more about the Billboard charts actually. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and recording: "3 of Hearts was one of three new artists signed to an RCA label; the others were John Rich and Carolyn Dawn Johnson." This implies maybe Rich and Johnson were signed around the same time as 3 of Hearts, but it doesn't say so explicitly. There's also no context for why it may be significant. Was there some kind of pattern or trend for the three signings, or maybe it was just coincidence? (Record labels sign new artists all the time, plus "signed to an RCA label" implies the signings were across multiple divisions.)
  • I understand your point, and I have removed that sentence. I agree that it does not have much relevance, and I would not be surprised if other artists were signed at this time that were just not reported in the source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The record label marketed 3 of Hearts and their album to a younger listener;[6] the group's manager Ken Kragen said, "I'm hoping that 3 of Hearts can bring to country a young audience that has sort of deserted the format"." This still feels to me like it could be made more compact, but I see your point that the angle is slightly different between the first part and second. Maybe paraphrasing the quotation might make it feel less superfluous? But if you still disagree, I won't insist on this point.
  • Good idea. I have paraphrased this part to hopefully make it clearer. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2001, Rogers sued Kragen for allegedly poaching 3 of Hearts from his company, Rogers' Dreamcatcher Management Co.;[8][9] Kragen responded by saying Rogers' company had rejected 3 of Hearts." Any info about the outcome of this legal suit? The reader is kind of left wondering...
  • I have updated this with another source. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding one of the points above where I didn't have a chance to reply to you reply: Maybe remove "the music from the film had been included on 250,000 promotional samplers.[7] The samplers were distributed through United Airlines to college campuses." It seems like a less-important detail, plus the issue of the source not explicitly saying the 3 of Hearts song was on it. (I do understand your reasoning, but I think it's probably safer to remove it.) Will continue soon. Moisejp (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. And I understand your point of view. I have removed the parts about the samplers. Aoba47 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition and sound: "The instrumentals include fiddles and drums that are commonly used in contemporary country music." Is this supposed to mean they were are a particular kind of fiddles and drums used in country music—which is implied by "that" but still sounds a bit ambiguous. Or is it supposed to be saying that not just a particular kind but fiddles and drums in general are commonly used in country music? If so, I think "...fiddles and drums, which are..." is more grammatically correct to begin a nonrestrictive clause. But if it's the latter case, I also think (even if grammatically correct) "The instrumentals include fiddles and drums, which are commonly used in contemporary country music" sounds a little awkward. Maybe something like "...fiddles and drums, which AllMusic writer Stephen Thomas Erlewine has noted are commonly used in country music" would give a little more weight to the statement to justify its inclusion. Moisejp (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised according to the suggestion above. Aoba47 (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a little bit torn about the inclusion in this section of brief mentions of the lyrical themes of some of the songs. On one hand, it may be somewhat encyclopedic to include whatever limited info is available. But on the other hand, the descriptions that are included (e.g., "lyrics about the importance of love") are so generic, I wonder if they really add much to the reader's understanding of the work. I'm guessing it's not available, but if more info were available to expand the discussion of the lyrical themes a little, maybe to find some trends across the album as a whole (different variations on the theme of love, with several specifics mentioned??), that would be helpful. Moisejp (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • More information about the lyrics and the song's content is not available. I find the information helpful as it is pointing out a common theme/topic featured over several songs, but if you feel that it is absolutely necessary, I can remove it. There is not much out there on the actually lyrical content of this album. Aoba47 (talk) 14:31, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's leave it as it is. More soon. I'm really hoping to finish off this review this weekend. Thanks for your patience! Moisejp (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your help as always! Aoba47 (talk) 16:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Commentators criticized 3 of Hearts and the trio's vocals as generic and lacking an authentic country sound.[5][18] Country Standard Time's Dan MacIntosh criticized the album as manufactured, describing its content as "impersonal, yet functional, songs".” Two sentences in a row with “criticized”. Could you replace one of them? Moisejp (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing it out. Not sure how I kept reading over that. I have revised that part. Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you as always for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Panagiotis Zois[edit]

  • Shouldn't it be "studio album of American group" instead of "by"?
  • For a majority of the album articles that I have read, they have used the construction "studio album by XYZ", but I am not opposed to revising this part if you feel that it would be better words this way. Aoba47 (talk)
  • Nah. I was kind of the fence on that one. Seeing as it's with "by" in other articles then it's fine.
  • Thank you for the response! Aoba47 (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the line about what kind of genre it belongs to require some further expansion / clarrification. Was it listed as teen pop / country music by the group or the record label while critics classified it as pop?
  • I pulled the teen pop/country music identification for the album from the AllMusic review, which is present in the "Composition and sound" section. To the best of my knowledge, the record label marketed the group and their music to country radio, while various music critics felt that the album was more pop than country. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to improve upon this part to maker it more transparent. I have been looking at this article for a while so I could very well just be used to something at this point that needs more clarification for a new reader if that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to add that multiple critics have identified the album as an example of country music and pop music so I do not see much of an issue here about that as the genres are sourced in the appropriate "composition" section as done in a majority of high-quality album articles. Aoba47 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Background and recording", I feel like it would be better to have "suggestions" in singular rather than plurar. Though that's just my POV.
  • I agree that the singular makes more sense to me than the plural so I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: By "four tracks" does that mean they recorded just four song or does "tracks" work like categories and they actually covered multiple songs of Twain and McBride?
  • It is intended to mean just four songs (i.e. the demo tape had a Twain song, a McBride song, a gospel song, and the "Star-Spangled Banner"). I could revise this part if you think that it should be clarified (i.e. use a different word than "tracks") as I can see how it can be interpreted as something else. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be best to do that so that leymen like me can understand. Maybe just say the tape was "composed of four songs" rather than "four tracks".

I've already gone through the article twice and couldn't really find anything else that seemed like it needed changing. Might do a triple check but for now it seems like a well-written article. PanagiotisZois (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • @PanagiotisZois: Thank you for the review as always! I have addressed your comments above. I hope that you are having a wonderful day or night so far. Aoba47 (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: OK, I've gone through the article again and I can't find anything wrong with it. I guess at this point I shouldn't be surprised given that it's you. I'm still curious about how you even found out about the groups existence but that's a discussion for another time. Seeing as how this is a well-written and informative article on a music album I'd it passes. Too bad the group itself didn't pass into mainstream. :P PanagiotisZois (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the kind words! I cannot remember how I came across this album and the group. I remember that I wanted to do expand the article because I found the whole idea of a bubblegum/teen pop take on country music to be interesting, and I thought the album cover was interesting. I enjoy doing a lot of these more obscure subject matters and bring them to FAC. I am honestly surprised that RCA did not try to at least get one more album out of them lol. Hope you are having a wonderful day or night so far! Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Status Update[edit]

  • @Ian Rose:@Sarastro1: I would greatly appreciate it if either one of you could provide an update on this nomination. It has received several reviews, as well as a source check and an image check. I hope you both are having a wonderful beginning of the year. Have a great rest of your day or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2018 (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/3_of_Hearts_(album)/archive1&oldid=1138453555"