Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)/archive2

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 archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2016 [1].

Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the second studio album recorded by Romanian singer-songwriter Alexandra Stan. I believe it satisfies the FL criteria after its first run was archived. It has as well undergone a peer review. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Nergaal[edit]

Resolved comments from Nergaal (talk)
  • Article doesn't explain the peculiar choice of releasing it in Jpn first. Nergaal (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal:  Done; Thank you so much for your comment. I added information regrading your point in "Background and development". Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an estimate of total sales of the album? Or any certification anywhere? Nergaal (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: All the information about charting and sales is included in the "Reception" section. Also, there's no certification for this album anywhere. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
14k seems kinda low. Is there an estimated total worldwide? Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: Nope, sorry. No material nor in Japanese or Romanian. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dan56[edit]

Resolved comments from Dan56 (talk)
  • There are several instances of repeated citations, or multiple in a row. Some cases involve synthesis, such as The recording drew influences of various genres, including dance, techno, pop, rhythm and blues, EDM, Bhangra, Caucasian-flavoured music and German club music.[26][27][28] If the writer in each source offers different opinions on what the genres are, then they should be attributed separately and stated in the article as being the opinion of the writer; [critic A] observed dance and techno in the album's music,[26] while [critic B] believed it featured pop and Bhangra songs.[27], or something to that effect. Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Issue fixed. Maybe have another look? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other instances I see involve stating facts from several sources in one sentence, which isn't incorrect but looks less tidy than it can be, like this one: "Thanks For Leaving" was released on 28 April 2014 as the first single from Unlocked simultaneously with its accompanying music video.[19][31] In this case, you may want to consider converting the citations to Harvard citations so the footnotes can be combined into one; I've done this often at articles when working toward FA, and here's an example from The Ecstatic. Hope these comments help, and good luck! Dan56 (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I haven't implemented the "harvard" sourcing—as most of the citations don't even have an author or a date—but fixed the first issue. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: Thanks you very much for your comments; I appreciate your effort. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:38, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Great work! With sources that have no authors or dates, the author field can be filled with "Anon." (for anonymous) and the year field can be filled with "n.d." (no date). Dan56 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: Added Anon. and n.d. to all sources provided. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead and infobox - 1) I understand that Victor was the distributor of the album's first release--in Japan--but Fonogram is mentioned in the lead as being the singer's new record label, and it released the album in several countries--including her native Romania--so it'd make sense to include it in the infobox and make a note of it in the lead that it was one of the album's distributors. 2) I don't understand the part about "it consists of using instrumentation previously explored in her work"; it seems to repeat the idea of the preceding sentence but in more awkward fashion and different verbiage. Perhaps remove it? Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article body - 1) I would recommend another editor review the prose; issues that stand out include some stretching beyond what the sources verify--"it failed to gain much success" is more than what footnote number 11 actually says--and interpreting the sources--"issuance" confuses me in the second section; what does it mean in the context that the Romanian-language source is using it in or in the sense that it is a theme on the album? 2) The Billboard source doesn't explicitly say that "Mr. Saxobeat" was a worldwide hit; this sentence is a bit off-topic anyway, so it'd be best to remove it IMO. Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS - 1) The composers and producers in the personnel section are already all credited in the track listing section; MOS:ALBUM#Personnel suggests removing repeated credits when they're already in one of these two sections. 2) This article doesn't really seem to need a "Charts and sales" section, since there's only one instance of charting and only one sales figure to report, both of which are also already written in the article body. I would recommend removing the section. Using tables is useful in situations where there are several or numerous figures to list or organize; other times, prose is preferred (MOS:TABLE). Dan56 (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: All  Done; the source questioned is literally reporting that the album itself lyrically approaches themes like "eliberarea, regasirea, un nou inceput", which translated are the things in the article. Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think whatever you're using to translate words from Romanian is misleading; eliberarea can more precisely mean deliverance, which is still ambiguous and is given no context here in the section. Does the source explain anything further, elaborate? Which songs are about what or how? As a reader, wouldn't you find it useless to have it stated that this is a theme on the album, period, no further explanation? Dan56 (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: changed wording as suggested. I have to dissapoint you; the source does only say that the whole album has the themes in its lyrics, not selected songs, but the source is to be kept because it's probably one of the most reliable sources from Romania. Best regards, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please attribute it as the writer's opinion then. If there are no other sources writing similarly of the album, or Stan/her writers explaining the themes they wrote of, then it's more appropriate to quote the source verbatim (in Romanian, and perhaps the English translation italicized and in parenthesis). Dan56 (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan56: I have attributed it as the writer's opinion, but didn't quote it as there's no big deal with it. I mean, they don't further speak about it in the whole article, it's just a "feeling-less" enumeration of lyrical themes at the beginning of their topic. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning towards support, but please separate each writer's opinion so it is clear to the reader which is which; the same goes for the sentence about genres/influences. Also, the summary in the lead--about critics praising the album--doesn't seem accurate to me; there are only two reviews of this album discussed in the body, one which seems generally positive and another which seems negative. That "many" critics praised the album is a strong claim. If there aren't any more reviews to discuss, I would stay away from describing any kind of consensus or summary of critical reviews with only two that were known to have been published. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan[edit]

Resolved comments from CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk)
  • I'm not too sure about the usage of the Rihanna and Britney Spears' images; only one critic (as from the article) has cited comparisons towards the Unlocked album, which is a bit too much of WP:Non-free content (also WP:Image use policy).
 Not done I think that's okay. As far as I know, these imgs are completely free to use. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why is there an absence of the other track lists? Aren't they a crucial part of the album, regardless if its released in specific regions.
 Not done This was an implemented comments from the previous FC nomination of Unlocked. In fact, the track lists aren't anything special, so this pays off here. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is also an overuse of citations in sentences like "The track—later included on Alesta (2016)[46]—reached the top thirty in Argentina,[47] Poland[48] and Turkey,[49] and the top sixty in Italy,[50] Romania[51] and Slovakia.[52]" (Plus, I don't think these ar neccessary, knowingly that the article already has these references.)
 Done The citations are necessary, but tried to fix the issue. Have another look maybe? Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No "alt" and caption in the infobox, knowing that there are two covers.
 Done Alt was already there, but added caption now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are just some points that I have noticed. It's good work, don't get me wrong, but small things like these are still big needs for a FAC. CaliforniaDreamsFan (talk · contribs} 04:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CaliforniaDreamsFan Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Carbrera[edit]

  • Shouldn't the label in the infobox only list the record company from the initial release? In this case, being Victor?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adevărul should be italicized
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note A should actually be physically described in the "Track listing" section so it's complete
 Done written out Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The DVD release mentions a DVD format of Unlocked being released, yet there is no mention of it in the article
 Done mentioned about it in the "Background and development" section. Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:28, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More to come. Carbrera (talk) 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Everything done so far. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose (by continuing your review), please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera Can you end this? Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the photo of Britney Spears is necessarily beneficial to the article; you can barely see her face
 Done Replaced with another one. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Dance" and "Little Lies" were compared to French disc jockey David Guetta and Spears' Britney Jean (2013) album, respectively." → Who made this comparison?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't look like Unlocked was released as a DVD, but rather a CD with a bonus DVD, so the "CD Releases" table should just list the format with something like "Deluxe + DVD" or "Deluxe with DVD" (not a separate table)
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference #5 should have a link for the iTunes Store in the parameter
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lengths in the "Track listing" don't add up to 57:30
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe some policy wants "2013-14" to be "2013-2014" now
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you abbreviate "Rhythm and blues" to "R&B"?
 Done
  • Shouldn't there be a track listing for "We Wanna"? There should be a dropdown for each available track listing of the album
 Not done See below Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You state "six singles" in the lead prose but only include five in the infobox
Only five songs were released as singles as promoting the album. However, a "sixth one", "We Wanna", was released for the next studio album, but still appears on few versions of Unlocked.
  • Shouldn't the German track listing be included in "Track listing" as well? Carbrera (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: All done! Thank you! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: It initially did feature other tracklistings as well, but the former FA nomination suggested that only the main tracklist should be added. Cartoon network freak (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera I've done all your comments. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: Sorry for bothering you, but I've pinged you like three times and I didn't respond. Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera
@Cartoon network freak: The only thing I'm confused about is why there wouldn't be a dropdown for other editions of the album. Almost every album on Wikipedia with multiple editions displays the other versions for the reader; why shouldn't this one? Carbrera (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Carbrera: I fixed it now. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera, can you oppose or support the nomination now? I'm like pinging you countless times and you're not responding. Cartoon network freak (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but I am still confused as the track listing you added still does not show the song "We Wanna", despite it being mentioned in the article. Also, the additional edition should include info such as the writers and the producers. Carbrera (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera, I think I've fixed this now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any information available on the producer for "Zoom Zoom"? Carbrera (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera, Sorry, but there is no info. Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:20, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I would strongly advise removing the "Writer(s)" and "Producer(s)" columns from that tracklist since they are empty and serve no purpose. Carbrera (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Carbrera Removed the latter column. Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Giants2008[edit]

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (talk)

I was asked for a review on my talk page, and here are a couple of things I found early in the article. I'll look at the rest later.

  • Background and development: "was made available for digital consumption in October 2013." I really think that "consumption" needs to be changed. It sounds like they were selling food instead of music.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recordings and artwork: "with only one of her eyes being visible". Remove "being", as it is unnecessary in the sentence and its presence leads to awkwardness in this sentence structure anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reception: Pop Shock wrote that the latter one was good enough to be an X Factor, a reality television music competition, winner's single." The bit inside the commas is making this a rough read. How about "was good enough to be a single by the winner of X Factor, a reality television music competition" instead?
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotion: Another "consumption" here in the first paragraph.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing: The first two words of "with them featuring a modified tracklist" seem like they can be removed to tighten the writing without affecting the meaning of the sentence.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In references 5 (third link), 18, 33, 47 (third and fifth links), 48, and 49, the hyphens should be replaced with en dashes per the MoS. Very minor, but I'm sure someone will bring it up if I don't. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 Could you please return to give this nomination a support or oppose, please? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jennica[edit]

Resolved comments from Jennica (talk)
  • I feel like it should be "Recording and artwork"
 Done It is already. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Promotion should go above Reception, since it includes information about singles. Singles come before any kind of album reception
 Done You've already done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it be "Personnel" and not "Credits and personnel" per WP:MOSALBUMS?
 Done You've already done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change "Vocal credits" to "Vocals", same thing for "Creative and visual". it seems redundant since it's all under Personnel anyway --Jennica✿ talk / contribs 02:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done You've already done it. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jennica, thank you for your time. Cartoon network freak (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jennica Can you please support or oppose to this nomination? Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support --Jennica✿ / talk 23:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would combine the first two sentences of the lead in a similar fashion to that done by 4 (Beyoncé album) to make something along the lines of "Unlocked is the second studio album by Romanian singer and songwriter Alexandra Stan, released on 27 August 2014 by Victor Entertainment." The bits about the album being a follow-up to Saxobeat is unnecessary (it is assumed when you say it is the second studio album that it will naturally be a follow-up to the first one) and being released digitally (as it implies the album was only released digitally when in fact there was a CD release according to the rest of the article).
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of adjectives in front of FonoCamp in the lead. I would prefer if you replace that with "the first international songwriting camp FonoCamp" as you have worded it in the body of the article to make it clear what exactly this event is for unfamiliar readers.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information about the Cherry Pop Summer Tour and Unlocked Tour should be in the "Promotion" section of this article for two reasons: 1) it is a major part of the album and without this information clearly put in the article than it is not comprehensive enough to be a featured article and 2) everything in the lead has to be in the article in some way shape or form. You even have an image from the tour in that section without actually mentioning the tour. You need to include general information about both tours (when they took place and critical responses to it). This is a major issue that I am surprised and concerned that no one has brought this rather large absence of information up in the reviews before this.
  • Once you add the information on the tours to the body of the article, remove the references in the lead (as during the expansion, the references should be in the "Promotion" section).
  • Also, did Alexandra Stan perform the music anywhere outside the tour or do any major press interviews or something along those lines for the album? That should be in the "Promotion" section as well. The "Promotion" section as it currently stands only covers the album's singles and not much else of the actual album's promotion outside of that.
  • Only one reviewer made comparisons between this album and those by Britney, Rihanna, and Sia so the final sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is somewhat misleading. You could modify it to the following to more accurate: "Critics gave generally positive reviews of the album, with one comparing it to works by American singer Britney Spears, Barbadian recording artist Rihanna and Australian performer Sia."
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Say Billboard Japan Hot 100 in the third paragraph of the lead. No reason to remove the Billboard part of the link.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove "managed to reach" to just "reached"
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the semicolon after Poland. That's not how semicolons work. You don't need any form of punctuation there.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subtitle for the block quote should "talking about" not "on talking about". The way you have it worded it now means she is talking about how she talked about the album, which is not correct.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for the commas around Saxobeats (2011) in the first sentence of the "Background and development" section.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "Shortly after"? Do you have an exact time? If not, it may be better to just say "After".
 Done Added "After" Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two paragraphs of the same section read rather awkwardly and disjointed to me. I believe a revision of both paragraphs would make all of the information flow more clearly together. Remember that to qualify as a featured article, the prose has to be strong and I do not believe that the prose of this section is very strong.
 Done Tried to reword a little bit Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am confused by the transition "After her recovery". Her recovery from what? Yeah, you said there were allegations of physical abuse from her former manager, but it seems like there is something missing connecting this two things together.
 Done Completing this a little bit Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You identify Prodan as a manager twice in the first paragraph of the same section.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 10:41, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Background and development" section, you discuss the album's singles. This section would be more appropriate for the "Promotion" section. In fact, there is some overlap between the two sections where it is a little too repetitive for my liking.
 Done Changed some things; take another look Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You also include a lot of information about the album's release, which should be put after the sections dealing with the background and recording of the album. I would suggest moving the information about the release of the album from this section and the information on the artwork of the album from the next section into a new section entitled "Release and artwork" as done in 4 (Beyoncé album).
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first half of the "Recording and artwork" paragraph is very disorganized. You start off by talking about the writing process and then the composition of the album (the various genres, and the lyrical content). It is all really good information, but it needs a major revision. Also, a lot of this information does not deal with the actual recording process of the album, but instead deals with again the writing and composition.
 Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest making a section entitled "Recording and composition" where you can put all of the information about these two. I am not a fan of the way the article is structured right now at all, as I believe it is very confusing and not what I would expect for a featured article.
 Not done I've modified this in another way; take a look now Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence ("Vanilla Chocolat" and "We Wanna" feature lyrics written in French and Spanish, respectively.) does not have a reference.
 Done Added the credits because of lyrics booklet Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not find the image in the "Promotion" section to be that helpful to be honest and would recommend removing it. It is rather low quality, and would suggest replacing it with a different one if possible.
  • I agree with a previous reviewer that the images of Rihanna and Britney should be removed as it is giving undue weight to one review of the album. If at least two reviews noted a similarity to these two artists, it would be fine, but I find the images to be appropriate for this. My issue with this is the context in which the images are used.
  • You only have two reviews for the album. I would imagine there has to be more than that. I would suggest finding at least one or two more if possible.

@Cartoon network freak: I want to first say that you have great work with this article and it definitely deserves to be a good article. Unfortunately, I do not believe that it is ready in its current state to be a featured article. There are just too many issues I have with the content (like where is the information about the tours?) and the structure (the first two sections are very messy and need revision to clear lay out a narrative for the reader). I know that this is not the answer you want to hear, especially since this has been up here since the end of August, but I have to oppose this, as I really do believe it is not up to the level expected for a featured article as this time. Aoba47 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: This nomination has been open for almost four months and I do not see a consensus for promotion to Featured status. Therefore, I will be archiving the nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Unlocked_(Alexandra_Stan_album)/archive2&oldid=1079644268"