Talk:No Saint

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 22:38, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Lauren Jenkins made a short film to accompany her debut album? Source: https://www.billboard.com/music/country/emerging-country-artist-spotlight-lauren-jenkins-8502660/
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Uncle Waffles

Created by Sebbirrrr (talk). Self-nominated at 08:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/No Saint; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• @Sebbirrrr: Less of a review and more of a comment, but I don't really think the hook is that interesting unless you know who the artist is. Are there any other possible hook options here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:18, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5: I thought it would be interesting as it is about a small artist directing a movie for her album (she also talked about how she was unsure if her record label would be on board with it and they unexpectedly agreed to it; although I don't think I could have made that into a hook). I wonder if the following ALT is more interesting:
  • ALT1: ... that a critic pointed out that Lauren Jenkins blended music and acting for No Saint "in ways not currently common practice" in country music? Source: https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-country/lauren-jenkins-no-saint-album-beyonce-810591/

Sebbirrrr (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a better hook. The think with the original hook IMO is that, unless you were familiar with the artist and the additional context with the film, the hook doesn't really come out as eyecatching or hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Sebbirrrr: Good article. Approve alt1 Onegreatjoke (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• In this case, it's meaningful that it was a critic writing for Rolling Stone magazine that made that observation, so I would name them in the hook:
  • ALT1a: ... that according to Rolling Stone, Lauren Jenkins blended music and acting for No Saint "in ways not currently common practice" in country music?
• @Sebbirrrr and Onegreatjoke: Ping. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

That's fine. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:No Saint/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a review for this within the next day or two. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sebbirrrr, the review is posted below. There are some issues that need to be resolved before this can be considered a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for reviewing my nomination. I've resolved some of the issues and left comments for the rest. Cheers, Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Sebbirrrr, looks good. Everything is addressed except for the places that I replied below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
    • @Thebiguglyalien: I've replied to and addressed your remaining concerns. Thanks, Sebbirrrr (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
      • @Thebiguglyalien: I addressed your final concern. Let me know if everything is alright now. Cheers, Sebbirrrr (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

Lead:

• Before she was signed to the aforementioned label, Jenkins performed at various establishments. – This doesn't really say anything and probably isn't important enough for the lead.
  • I believe it adds to her background. Otherwise we'd be left with Her producer sent demos he had worked on with her to several labels, and she signed with Big Machine which seems out of place
• Music critics commented on Jenkins's vocal delivery. – This doesn't tell the reader anything. The next sentence says the same thing, but gives more information.
  • Removed

Background:

• I know identity document is technically the correct term, but it doesn't feel like natural English.
  • I'm not sure how else to reword it as the source calls it that. Maybe something like "she performed under different identities", although it may sound weird
    • Yeah, the only thing I can think of is "using fake IDs", but that might go the other way and be too informal. I'll leave it to you what you think the best wording is. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
      • I think identity document is alright to use
• She also attempted to perform – "Attempted to" implies that she failed. In this case, a wording closer to the source might be appropriate, or maybe something like "she sought out coffee shops and airports where she could perform".
  • Reworded to your suggestion
• Jenkins stated that the album consisted of songs... – Would this fit better as a description of the music in the section below?
  • It does. Moved it below
• Reuter noted that her "passion for storytelling" – This is Reuter's opinion, but "noted" presents it as a fact (MOS:SAID). Also, it might fit better with the other critics' opinions.
  • Replaced "noted". It seems more like a comment to me
• she took photos – Unclear how the photos related to the packaging
  • They were included in the packaging
    • That still leaves some questions unanswered. Were they portraits of Jenkins? Pictures of the studio and the instruments? Vacation pics? And where were they? Were they part of the album cover art? Were they loose Polaroids scattered in the packaging? This sort of info is helpful for context in the article, otherwise the reader is left wondering. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
      • They are photos of Jenkins which were printed on the booklet with the lyrics. I wasn't sure how to word this as the mention of her handwritten lyrics (which are scattered around the booklet) could make it confusing
        • How about "the packaging was decorated with Jenkins' hand-written lyrics and with photos that she took" or something similar to that? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
          • That works, thanks

Music and lyrics:

• labeled the album's sound as one which comprises – Unnecessarily wordy
  • Reworded
• main themes are drinking alcohol, romance, and self-doubt – This could be read as saying the themes are drinking alcohol, drinking romance, and drinking self-doubt. It's not really clear how "drinking alcohol" is a theme, since that's just an action. Also, this sentence seems randomly stuck in, as it has nothing to do with the sentences before or after it and no attempt is made to connect them.
  • Moved it in the paragraph below. She mentions drinking in some of the songs so I think it should be included, otherwise the sources wouldn't have mentioned it as a "theme" (yes I think it's odd but it looks like it was considered a theme)
    • Would it still represent the sources if it just said "alcohol" as a theme instead of "drinking alcohol"? A noun sounds more natural than a verb here.
      • Amended
• Does the production info belong under "music and lyrics"? It should probably be in its own "production" section. It could also be combined with the release information and maybe the promotion information into a single "production and release" section.
  • I don't think there's much to say about the production (see below), nor about the release
• A Taste of Country reviewer assimilated it – Swap "assimilated". "Compared" is fine.
  • Done
• whom Jenkins observes ruining themselves through drugs and alcohol – Can this be reworded?
  • I tried but I'm not sure how to reword it
    • "observes ruining themselves" doesn't read naturally, but I also can't think of any better alternatives. Up to you if you want to change it to anything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I can't think of anything either

Promotion:

• On the same day as Jenkins's album's release date was announced, – Reword
  • Removed entirely as it seems trivial
• made available the single "Maker's Mark and You" – Change to "released the single" or "made the single Maker's Mark and You available"
  • Reworded to the latter

Reception:

• AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine noted that Jenkins's voice – Uses "noted" to describe an opinion
  • Replaced
• and distinctive "at times" on the album – Unclear what this means
  • Reworded, I put "at times" in the wrong place
• affirmed that Jenkins ignored all rules about what country music is – "Affirmed" suggests it's a fact the same way "noted" does.
  • Replaced

Verifiable with no original research

AllMusic's reliability is disputed. The critics' reviews posted on it are fine, but for other things a better source would be preferred if possible. All other sources appear to be reliable.

Spot checks:

• [1] Dauphin (2014) Y
• [5] Hollabaugh (2018) Y
• [11] Horowitz (2019):
  • Her vocal delivery was compared to that of singers Sheryl Crow and Stevie Nicks – This is the author's opinion and should be attributed in-text.
    • Added
  • She struggles to forgive her lover for their wrongdoings – Does this source add anything here that the other two don't already cover? Since neither of the quotes are in this source, it just makes verification trickier.
    • It doesn't, my bad
  • The latter is a mid-tempo ballad which, according to Billboard's Annie Reuter – If it's attributed to Reuter, then why is it also cited to Horowitz?
    • I combined what Horowitz said (he called it a mid-tempo ballad) with Reuter's statement. I thought that having two sentences for a song would be an overkill but let me know if the way it is now is confusing
  • was composed for a family member – This source says "friend".
    • Changed to "someone" as it's not clear
• [15] Rhodes (2019):
  • Same as with Horowitz, neither of those quotes are in this source, so does it need to be here?
    • Which quotes are you referring to?
      • I meant to refer to the same She struggles to forgive her lover for their wrongdoings line. You removed Horowitz, but can Rhodes be removed as well? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
        • I think it should be kept as it talks about the unable to forgive someone for their transgressions bit which I don't think the other source clearly states
  • Not sure if this verifies the bit about "My Bar".
    • It verifies the bit about Jenkins frequenting the bar
• [18] Moss (2019) Y

Broad in its coverage

There's very little about the album's production. Can more be found about the processes of writing and recording the album?

• Unfortunately not. The only thing I could identify is the part where Jenkins talks about how old/new the songs are...

Neutral

No ideas are given undue weight.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

The album cover has a valid non-free use rationale.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.