I’m nominating this article again because I think it meets the featured article criteria. The last two nominations stalled due to inactivity, so hopefully the third time’s the charm.
For a brief overview, this is the first album Christian rock band
MercyMe released after signing to
INO Records. The album was praised by critics and did well in sales almost exclusively off the success of “
I Can Only Imagine”, which was a Christian radio hit in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003. It’s been certified 3x Platinum (3,000,000 in sales) as of 2019, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and “I Can Only Imagine” received that certification as well, making it the best-selling Christian song ever.
Support — All my issues were adressed in the first FAC attempt. I did not find anything that needs to be corrected.--Lirim | Talk13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support from Lee Vilenski
I don't like articles failing an FA due to lack of eyes. I'll take a look:
Not a fan of the "Personnel" subsection. Needs some explanation, rather than just where this comes from. In fact, this is just mentioned again in the ref
Is a full table necessary for one figure on number of sales?
Good point. Pages normally have one but it’s already noted multiple times in the article, and there are not multiple entries, I’ve removed it. ToaNidhiki0520:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)reply
In Critical reception, you have [15][11][18][14][55] - 5 refs. Borders on
WP:REFBOMB, could you combine these into one reference?
I will do a full review of the article by the end of tomorrow if that is okay with you. I am leaving this as a placeholder. I am happy to see this up for another FAC and I hope it gets more attention this time around. I look forward to reading through the article again soon.
Aoba47 (
talk)
23:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)reply
For this sentence (After releasing six records as an
unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell records, book shows, and manage themselves.), I would replace the first instance of "records" with "studio albums" as that appears to be the more correct word choice. The word "records" is rather vague so it would be better to clarify that point.
I would just recommend using something more precise than "records". "Albums" would work. I have seen the word "records" refer to both albums and singles so that is why I am cautioning against it.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I am confused by this part (is the first studio album) as it appears the band released other studio albums before this one so saying it is the "first studio album" does not seem accurate to me.
This was the first studio album the band had made, but they had recorded 6 independent albums off of a record label before that. These albums weren’t recorded in a studio (but rather in places like church gymns and the like) and weren’t released on a label. I had generally grouped them as “independent albums” because they aren’t really in the same category, and the band and media generally don’t group them with the band’s efforts that have been released on a label. ToaNidhiki0512:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I am still uncertain about this. I would still think that independent or self-released albums would qualify as studio albums. I do not think a studio album just means major-label releases. Also, even if the band recorded in more unconventional places, like a church's gym, they still would have needed equipment to record everything so in effect these spaces became studios. They are not like the high-ended recording studio often used for more mainstream albums, but I would still believe these spaces would qualify as studios. However, I will leave that for other editors to decide and discuss, because I am quite uncertain about it. It is not a major issue for me, and it would not prevent me from supporting this for promotion.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Makes sense. If others take issue with this I can revisit I. I will note that
Billboard does not identify the independent albums as studio ones; they said the band’s most recent album (2017’s Lifer) is their ninth. If independent ones were included, it would be their 15th. ToaNidhiki0515:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
For this part (appeared on the band's unsigned records), I think "self-released records" would be the better phrasing. Something about "unsigned records" does not seem correct to me.
I have a question about this part (Although Kipley had been involved on some minor projects). Does the source clarify what these "minor projects" were?
Yes, missed it the first time but apparently he was involved in radio mixes before this. I’ve added this as well as some more details on Kipley’s role. ToaNidhiki0512:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I am confused by this portion (According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get the song on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the
adult contemporary genre.). It immediately follows the sentence on "
Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" and how much the band disliked it so it is weird that this part makes it seem like the band fought for that song. I am assuming this part is not in the correct spot.
You’d be correct. This is supposed to refer to "House of God"; I’ve corrected this so "the song" is clarified to be "House of God". ToaNidhiki0512:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I am confused by this part (because they felt the adult had been pushed to an adult contemporary sound.). What do you mean by "the adult"?
For the first sentence of the "Composition" section, I could see some editors raising concerns about
Wikipedia:Overlinking. It may be helpful to
bundle the citations together to avoid that. I have always been told to avoid using four citations in a row; three is fine, but I think that is the limit. The sentence as a whole has seven citations so it is quite a bit.
For this part (of Scheuchzer to
U2's guitarist
The Edge), I do not believe "the" of the Edge should be capitalized. The same comment applies for the Cure in this part (the song was compared to the work of
The Cure).
For this sentence (In its 25th anniversary edition, CCM Magazine listed Almost There as one of '100 Albums You Need to Own'.), CCM Magazine and Almost There should be in italics.
I am not really a fan of worship music tbh, but you have done a great job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope this nomination gets more attention in the near future.
Aoba47 (
talk)
15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That's a very odd referencing system, e.g., one <ref> tag populated with a bulleted list of references that had been used previously. My knee-jerk reaction would be to Oppose, but... why did you do things that way? Was there a reason, or was that the only way you could think of to handle the situation? ♦
Lingzhi2(talk)07:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
This was suggested earlier in the FAC as an alternative to having several references back to back,
Lingzhi2. If you have an alternative I’d be happy to consider it. ToaNidhiki0511:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I think it's a bit irregular. The problem is, every time I touch references, I always want to turn them into my preferred style. That would be major surgery. So let's just drop this for now. If the FAC passes, no harm no foul. If it fails, and if you have any desire to do so, feel free to contact me & I'll redo it all from top to bottom. Cheers. ♦
Lingzhi2(talk)15:43, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Thank you for the comment! I would say it is quite representative of the album’s sound,
Jo-Jo Eumerus. I don’t know if a reliable source is needed for that but the song is a good example of what the album’s median sound and lyrical content is like. ToaNidhiki0511:42, 26 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I've had an additional thought here,
Jo-Jo Eumerus. I would like to include both samples, but "House of God" is not quite representative of the album. However, I feel the sample is quite useful in informing the reader of just what the band mean when they said they pushed for "House of God" to bolster their rock credentials. Perhaps moving it to "Background and recording" would be sufficient? There it actually serves a purpose for the reader. If this still is not enough I would be fine with removing it, however I would like the "How Great Is Your Love" sample to remain as it is representative of the album. ToaNidhiki0502:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I don't think that would help;
WP:NFCC#8 is Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic (emphasis mine) and I don't see how this would be the case. By the same line of thought "How Great Is Your Love" will need a better inclusion argument than "As the song is the most successful release from the album both critically and commercially, its inclusion is essential to the album and the album's article by extension."
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions)
07:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I’ve deleted “House of God” and corrected the description and justification “How Great Is Your Love”. The latter is representative of the album and has been covered by multiple sources, the vast majority of album FAs here include at least one representative sample so hopefully this is sufficient. ToaNidhiki0514:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
After releasing six albums as an
unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell albums, book shows, and manage themselves - some repetition of "band". What about changing the latter instance to "they", since it should be clear to every reader who is being referred to. I'd also consider piping to
recording contract, for the more music industry-illiterate reader.
Four of the songs on the album had previously appeared on the band's self-released albums - less is generally more. I'd consider changing this to "Four songs on the album had previously appeared on their self-released albums"
Also, I'd consider ending the first paragraph after the above sentence. The next sentence, Critics have characterized... refereences Critical reception, which is what the next paragraph seems to be focused on.
however, it underperformed on the charts, leading to poorer than expected sales for the album - I'd find a way to incorporating the word "initially" somewhere in that sentence if I were you, since the next sentence says that sales picked up on the release of the next single.
The band later brought on drummer Robby Shaffer and bassist Nathan Cochran. sounds a little to informal. What about "Drummer Robby Shaffer and bassist Nathan Cochran later joined the band."? It might also help if you specify when they joined the group. The current source (written in 2000) indicates that "Nathan join[ed] the fold over three years ago and Robby a little over two years ago." So maybe something along the lines of "Bassist Nathan Cochran joined the band in 1997, with drummer Robby Shaffer joining the following year." This is absolutely apropos of nothing, but I noticed that the
Members section of the band's main article currently has an "additional citations needed" tag. It may be a good idea for you to transfer this reference to that section.
In October 1999, they released their fifth self-released album, The Worship Project. 2 uses of "released". The first half of this sentence could be changed to "In October 1999, they issued.
All of the other songs on the album were new songs which had not been recorded before. Consider changing to "All of the other songs on the album were new, and had not appeared on any of their previous albums."
With the exception of "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm, Millard and MercyMe wrote all of the songs for the album.[7] The band included "I Worship You" after Kipley brought it to them; although the band wanted to write their own material, they liked the song so much that they put it as the first song on the album.[8] This may read better as "Millard and MercyMe wrote every song on the album, with the exception of "I Worship You", which was written by Kipley and Reggie Hamm.[7] Although the band wanted to write their own material, they said they liked this song so much that they wanted it to appear as the first track on the album.[8]
According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get "House of God" on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the
adult contemporary genre. The first half of this sentence is a bit too informal, so maybe something like "According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to have "House of God" included on the album" would be better. And I don't really understand the second half. I take it that it was the label who were pushing the band a little too far towards the
adult contemporary genre? If that's the case, the sentence could probably be changed to: "they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, and felt the label was pushing them too far towards the
adult contemporary genre."
You picked up exactly what I was trying to get at. This sentence as well as the one above about "Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" both focus on conflicts with the label - the band ceding on including the former, but insisting on including "House of God" because of the label's push towards a more adult contemporary sound. I've added your wordings here verbatim. ToaNidhiki0502:49, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I'll hopefully be able to review the rest of the prose tomorrow. But something else I noticed in the 'Track listing' and 'Credits and personnel' sections: you have the first line in parenthesis (brackets). If you want it that way, that's fine with me. Just thought I'd point this out. ;)
Homeostasis07 (
talk ·
contribs)
01:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the swift response. I'm happy with the changes you've made this far. Continuing my review:
Composition
Almost There has been described by critics as being a
worship and a
pop rockalbum. The album was noted as being stylistically similar to
contemporary Christian bands like
FFH. - some repetition of "being" and "album", and an unnecessary plural ("bands"). Something like "...a
worship and
pop rock album, and was noted as being stylistically similar to the work of
contemporary Christian band
FFH." may be better.
You could do with describing who Steve Losey is during his first appearance in the article (in this section... and then removing the "of
AllMusic" from 'Critical reception and accolades').
In 2003, the album again received increased sales as "I Can Only Imagine" received airplay on mainstream radio formats. - What about "Sales of the album increased throughout 2003 as "I Can Only Imagine" received airplay on mainstream radio formats."?
"In the ever–growing genre of modern worship, MercyMe steps up to the plate and drives a home run over the fence". He praised the album as having a "fresh sound", but felt that much of the album was "somewhat low–key." Incorrect dashes have been used here. Change them to -'s (also in In a later review for the album's "Platinum Edition" re–release,... although I'm not sure you even need the "re-release" there).