Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/La Isla Bonita/archive3

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 FrB.TG via FACBot (talk) 8 November 2023 [1].

La Isla Bonita

Nominator(s): Christian (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Madonna's 1987 song "La Isla Bonita". Having tried two previous times to take this article to FA status, I have gone through all the reviews given to me by more experienced editor and, after having gone through every source, I decided that it's finally ready.--Christian (talk) 19:32, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First-time nomination

Hi Chrishm21, and welcome back to FAC. Just noting that as you have not yet had an article promoted at FAC, this one will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check and a review for over-close paraphrasing to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Addressed comments

I have a comment for this sentence: (Written and produced by Madonna and Patrick Leonard, it was created as an instrumental demo by Leonard and Bruce Gaitsch.) The timeline for this song's creation is presented in an odd way. It starts with Madonna and Leonard working together and presents the demo part later on. I think it would be best to start with the demo information and have that lead into the actual song creation. I just find putting the information in a more chronological order to be best. Here is an idea for it: Patrick Leonard and Bruce Gaitsch created it as an instrumental demo and offered it to singer Michael Jackson, who turned it down. When Leonard he met Madonna to start working on True Blue, he played the demo for her. Madonna came up with the title and wrote and produced the song with Leonard. DONE
I would simplify this part, (mixed to positive reviews) to just mixed review to be more concise. DONE
I was intrigued by this part, (while others accused the singer of cultural appropriation), so I looked at that part in the article. To be clear, I am talking about the "Analysis and reception" subsection. For this part, (with the latter going as far as accusing her of cultural appropriation), I would remove and revise "going as far as accusing her of" as it has tonal issues and reads too sensationalized. DONE
I would re-examine the structure and the prose for the "Analysis and reception" subsection. There's a lot of great information, but I believe it could be presented more clearly. I would look at WP:Reception for what I mean. I have similar concerns with the "Critical reception" because aside from a topic sentence saying that the song received positive reviews, the rest of the information seems more like a random listing of critics and their opinions.

On the video reception section, I'm listing first the ones that point out the borrowing/appropriation/usage of Spanish culture; then it's the reception towards Madonna's look, and finally a brief contrast of both characters. The following paragraph is all bout contemporary reviews and finally, the mention of it being one of Madonna's most viewed videos on YT. :) As for the critical reception, I'm first listing authors, then more contemporary critics (divided into positive and negative).

I still think the prose for both sections should be revisited for the reasons that I have stated above. The structure that you have explained is not clear in the actual article in my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Matthew Rettenmund and his review notable enough to receive a block quote? In the past, I have received some pushback on block quotes like this as putting undue weight on a particular critic, and I am not sure about the usage here.

This has not been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by the "Accolades" section. I would associate that more with awards and nominations, and I would not consider critics putting this song on their best-of lists an accolade. I think this information would be better suited in the "Reception" section. It may be a good idea to separate retrospective reviews into their own paragraph as these kinds of lists would qualify for that and would help to paint a picture of the song's legacy.

Changed it to a sub-section of Recognition.

For File:La Isla Bonits screenshot.jpg, I would write a caption that more strongly justifies its inclusion in the article. The WP:FUR does a good job of explaining the rationale, but the caption is just a description of what the image shows. DONE

This part was not really addressed. It is still just a description of the screenshot more or less. As I suggested above, I would pull from the WP:FUR to give it a stronger justification, specifically focusing on how critics have discussed this particular look. Aoba47 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid using words like "current" as done in this part, (current Celebration Tour). DONE

Changed it to 'ongoing', how's that?

That has the same issue as "current". Just say that she is performing it on the tour and provide the years that it takes place. The year(s) for any of the tours should be put in the prose anyway. See something like "Blank Space" for what I mean. Aoba47 (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think Discogs is really used anymore as an external link so I would remove that section entire. DONE

I hope these comments are helpful. These are things that I have noticed while doing a quick scan of the article, but I will read through it more thoroughly once everything has been addressed above. I have participated in the peer review for this article last year, and I am glad that you are still working on this article. Best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 02:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All DONE @Aoba47:

Just a reminder, but graphics like the one for "done" are not permitted in a FAC so I would encourage you to remove them. I will add further comments momentarily, but I still believe the prose and overall structure for reception sections (for the song and video) need work and one of my points (about the block quote) was not addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paragraph of the "Background and release" section, there is a sentence with four citations. I would avoid such citation overkill by doing something like citation bundling.
There are a few spots where the citations are not in numeric order. It is not required for a FAC or a FA, but I just wanted to call your attention to it regardless.
Just out of curiosity, but why is "The Beautiful Island" described as a rough translation of the song title? It just seems like a simple and rather clear thing to translate so I am not sure why it is described as rough.

Native Spanish-speaker; the actual literal translation is 'The Pretty Islan' (Bonita=Pretty), however I could not find any appropriate source that mentions this, unlike 'Beautiful'.

I have a clarification question about this sentence: (Gaitsch was not fond of the title, fearing it to be "uncommercial".) Did Gaitsch have this fear because the song's title was in a different language other than English?

Source only mentions that, that Gaitsch did not like the title as he found it uncommercial.

Thank you for checking this. I have also checked the source myself just to make sure. Since there is not any further explanation or clarification for this quote, the current version works for me. Aoba47 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, (Her and Leonard would go on), I would avoid "Her and Leonard". I do not think it is grammatically correct and it just looks and reads awkwardly anyway so it is best avoided in my opinion.
I have two comments on this part, (Described as a "Latino-pop dance ballad", its sound has also been). The quote should be clearly attributed in the prose, and this part says the song's sound was described as a "Latino-pop dance ballad" and not the song so that would need to be revised.
The article only mentions Lady Gaga's "Alejandro" once and it is tied to only one critic, but I would be curious if more can be said about this as it seems to be rather common to connect these two songs in some way. For instance, this Rolling Stone source already used in the article (here) refers to "Alejandro" as a rip-off of "La Isla Bonita".

The "Alejandro" comment I believe would be betetr suited on said article than on her, but let me know.

That's fair and makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk)

I would more clearly attribute who says "complicates" and "utopic" later in the same section. I would avoid having quotes like these without clear attribution of who is saying them in the prose. Other instances of this is the "flamboyant" quote in this part, (she plays a "flamboyant" flamenco dancer) or the "Spanish fantasy" quote in this part, (the stage was set up as a "Spanish fantasy").

Done

I am not sure of the relevance or value of this sentence: (According to Sharon Oreck, in her book Video Slut (2010), it was a very simple shooting.) Unless more context can be given, like this was a simple shooting compared to other Madonna videos, I am just not sure if this is entirely necessary.

That is what the source mentions, "very simple shooting"

That goes back to my original question then. Why is that necessary to include in the article? It just does not seem to add much of anything, especially if there is no further context on how this video being a simple shoot really meant anything. Aoba47 (talk) 18:33, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. I have provided further comments above while reading more closely through the article. I have largely avoided the "Critical reception" section and the "Analysis and reception" subsection because like I have already stated above, I think the prose and overall structure could use further work.

You have done a lot of excellent work in this article. I would like to take some time in particular to more thoroughly through the "Live performances" section. It is understandable that it is long because of the frequency Madonna has performed this song. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will go through the article again. Aoba47 (talk) 21:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Aoba47:! I will check this first thing this weekend, as work has kept me a little busy these days.--Christian (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I completely understand. Take all the time you need with it. Best of luck with work! Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Aoba47:, I have fixed some more of what you pointed out; let me know.--Christian (talk) 16:34, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I will look through the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up earlier, but it has not been addressed. I still have concerns on the Matthew Rettenmund block quote. Again, it could be seen as putting undue weight on one critic's opinion, and I have seen and received pushback on the use of block quotes for this reason. Unless a strong justification can be provided for its inclusion, I would remove it.
For the caption for File:La Isla Bonits screenshot.jpg, I wouldn't just have it put all on a single critic and have it be broader to provide a stronger justification for its inclusion. Something like the following could be helpful: (Critics and authors discussed and analyzed Madonna's appearance as a flamenco dancer in the music video.)
My concern with the Sharon Oreck part has still not been really addressed. Again, how is the video being "a very simple shooting" particularly relevant or insightful to readers? I just do not see it adding much. Unless more context can be added, it just seems trivial.
For the image captions for File:LaIslaBonitaSticky&SweetTour (cropped).jpg and File:Rebel Heart Tour 2016 - Brisbane 2 (26194171302) (cropped).jpg, the years the photos were taken should be included to be consistent with other images in the article.

I hope these comments are helpful. I will read the article again once everything has been addressed. I hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note

Having been open for three weeks now, with a lack of support, the nomination is currently at a standstill. Unless there's a significant shift towards a consensus favoring promotion within the next three or four days, there's a risk that the nomination may be archived. In the meanwhile I recommend you resolve the rest of Aoba's comments, and hopefully, it attracts additional reviews within the next few days. FrB.TG (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment. Given the user's inaction regarding Aoba's comments and the lack of a support, I'm archiving this. Chrishm21, sorry that this hasn't worked out for you even on a third try, but a few pointers on what could help you, should you decide to renominate. To increase the chance of your nomination getting reviewed, I recommend you review the work of others. It is also a good way to get a grasp of the process from the other side – although remember there is no quid pro quo at FAC. Finding reviewers interested in this topic could also prove helpful (perhaps posting on relevant Wikiprojects like Madonna and music). FrB.TG (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. FrB.TG (talk) 10:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.