Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Virtual Self (EP)/archive3

Virtual Self (EP)

Nominator(s): Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Third time's the charm!

Following the release of Worlds, Porter Robinson felt pressured to release a follow-up album with a similar sound, but couldn't come up with anything. His idea, then, was to break expectations and change his musical style completely, just as he had done with Worlds. This resulted in the Virtual Self alias and its self-titled EP, where he used the early 2000s as his main inspiration for visuals and sound. Following the recent promotion of Worlds, here is another article of a Robinson album that I believe is ready for FAC. Thank you! I'd like to invite the past nominations' and PR participants (LunaEclipse, Heartfox, Dylan620, and Dxneo) to participate in this nomination if they wish.

Skyshiftertalk 21:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Dylan620

My concerns from the last nomination and the PR have been addressed, and I am happy to support this time around. Best of luck with the FAC! Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review for this article, but I hope that these comments are helpful:

This part, (releasing his debut studio album Worlds (2014), a deviation from his earlier sound), is unclear as there is not any context provided for this "earlier sound" or the sound for Worlds.
- Fixed
I am uncertain about this part, (The alias is represented by two characters created by Robinson). I understand that it is focused on the different tempos for the EP's songs and it does follow after sentences on the EP's genre and sounds, but the mention of the persona comes off rather abruptly. I wonder if there is a way to make this transition more smoothly.
- Fixed
Why is the persona used for this sentence, ( Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere.), while throughout the earlier sentences reference Porter Robinson by his name?
- This part describes Virtual Self's visuals, which are different than the ones Robinson uses for work under his own name.
  - I understand that, but I find the shift from Robinson to Virtual Self to being rather jarring. The alias is introduced at the end of the lead's first paragraph, then the second paragraph talks about Robinson and two different characters (Pathselector and Technic-Angel), and the alias is only brought up again at the end of that paragraph. To me at least, it does not feel cohesive. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, (Porter Robinson was initially known for his "aggressive" electro and complextro sound), attribution would need to be provided in the prose to clearly identify who is saying this quote.
- This is more of a general descriptor, so removed quotes.
I do see a fair amount of repetition in the prose. For the first paragraph in the "Background" section, "released" is repeated for ("In 2012, he released 'Language', his first song" and "Two years later, Robinson released his"), and the first sentence from that section has "with releases such as", which adds to the repetition. The second paragraph from the same section has repetition with "follow-up" and there is repetition in this sentence, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea, as he could not come up with new ideas or create anything he was satisfied with.) I would double-check the article for this type of repetition.
- Fixed
For this sentence, (It was acclaimed and had an impact on the electronic dance music scene.), I would clarify who is making these claims. Is it critics, fans, etc.? Clearer attribution would help, and it would avoid having this sentence be in passive voice.
- Done
I am uncertain about the use of the word "idea" in this part, (Ultimately, Robinson resisted this idea), as this is referencing something Robinson himself thought. I just do not think "idea" works for something that Robinson himself is describing about his own music.
- Robinson resisted the idea of creating a similar sounding follow-up. Maybe it's because I'm not fluent in English, but I don't see the problem here. Could you suggest an alternative?
  - I could just being overly nitpick-y with this part. For me, when I read this part, I was initially unsure of what was meant by "idea", but it could just be me, and I cannot really think of a direct substiution at the moment. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about this part, (Robinson realized that musical tropes from the early 2000s, albeit obsolete,). How can a "musical trope" become obsolete?
- Fixed
Going back to the repetition point from earlier, I would see if you could avoid saying Robinson's last name twice in this sentence: (In August 2016, Robinson released "Shelter", a collaboration with Madeon that Robinson believed to be successful.)
- Fixed
The last paragraph of the "Background" section comes off as a bit list-y with the dates, specifically with the repetition of the "In X year". I would see if there is a way to better and more cohesively represent this information.
- Fixed

Best of luck with this FAC. I wanted to leave these comments as I do notice issues with the prose in the lead and the little bit of the actual article that I have read. Based on what I have read, I do not think the prose is on the level expected for a FA/FAC, but I am not going to oppose as I have not read the entire article. I hope that this is helpful, and I hope you have a great rest of weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, "I am going to oppose"? Missing a "not" based on the context...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for catching that and notifying me about that. Apologies for missing that. I have revised my original comment to add that in. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for your comments! Sorry for the delay. Skyshiftertalk 23:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the ping and for the message. No need to apologize. I hope that my comments are helpful. I think that the overall prose in the article could use further work, but as I have said above, I will not oppose based on that. Apologies for not being able to do a full review at this time, but I hope that this FAC gets more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And just to be clear, I hope that this does not come across as too negative as I respect and value your work on this article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]