# Talk:Fortune (Chris Brown album)

There should be a song called Calypso added to the list of recorded songs because it will more then likely be on the album
Schutze23 (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately more then likely is not enough unless there are sources confirming that it is on the album. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, just look for yourself and decide if it's legit or not.
http://musicjustice.net/2012/01/chris-brown-sets-fortune-release-date/

The third party sources in which the article is based on looks legitimate. (The source: [1]). I feel this is an important piece that should be added to the article. -- User:2nyte 12:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done Oz talk 08:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nas is going to be on the album, I think it's worth mentioning. Chris's tweet about it is included in the article.
http://www.rap-up.com/2012/01/20/chris-brown-enlists-nas-for-fortune/

 Done Oz talk 00:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
--76.23.79.50 (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)Hello == Source Replacement for 9 & 10 ==
The source you put on for the "One Of Those Nights" single is all wrong. Even though when you click on it, it shows the song, it's only because its in 'WebCited' form. Which only snapshots what you're citing. If you click on the proper link (on the actual website) the song is no longer listed.
Proof: http://www.allaccess.com/top40-rhythmic/future-releases  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicMusic101 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC) 

That's because the All Access website gets updated each week. Songs mentioned in the list are not going to stay on the website forever lol. Oz talk 20:43, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Chris Brown has just stated via his twitter account the second single will be released on January 26, with the title Turn Up The Music; "New FORTUNE single coming 1/26!!! "TURN UP THE MUSIC"!!!!!!". -- User:2nyte 6:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please do not use Twitter as a source as it is not reliable for Wikipedia. Read WP:RELIABLE. Oz talk 12:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Billboard, "Turn Up The Music" will be available for digital download on February 14th. It also has the single cover attached to it. 
http://www.billboard.com/news/chris-brown-releases-turn-up-the-music-single-1005992172.story#/news/chris-brown-releases-turn-up-the-music-single-1005992172.story  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 23:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 23:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

There are so many reliable sources calling "Turn Up the Music" the first single from Fortune. See Billboard, MTV News and Capital FM are some examples. And reliable sources such as Digital Spy and RTT News are calling "Strip" a buzz single. I guess Brown's record label decided to change "Strip" to a buzz single because it flopped on the charts. Promotional recording#Buzz single states, "The term buzz single is sometimes used by the artists or the record label whose single(s) have performed below expectations. Referring to such singles later as a "buzz singles", regardless of the accuracy of the statement. This has the effect of downplaying the commercial failure of the single and preventing damage to the artist's reputation and the label." Oz talk 04:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A song that was Chris's leaked called "Touch Me" ft. Se7en and it will be on his album. He tweeted the lyrics then deleted them at one point. 
http://thelavalizard.com/2012/01/new-song-chris-brown-touch-me-like-u-touchin-urself-ft-se7en-snippet/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 22:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The album is still listed to come out in Germany on the 16th on your source but VEVO is placing the album under an April release date. Don't know if you'll want to include that but ultimately, I think the date is subject to change because of all the leaks and as soon as I find an article I'll post it.
http://blog.vevo.com/2012-album-preview-15-albums-were-looking-forward-to/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 03:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a description of the "Fortune" album in the article
http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1678207/chris-brown-fortune-producers-underdogs.jhtml  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 22:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

http://923now.radio.com/2012/02/04/chris-browns-i-love-you-hits-the-net-listen-now/
Another leak called "I Love You" that will be on the album.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 14:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 21:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You might really wanna double check the reliability of that Germany release date you posted. The fact that the UK doesn't get "Turn Up The Music" until March 26th should make it obvious that that album's not gonna see the light of day ANYWHERE before April.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC) 

I think we should just wait until March 16 passes. If its not released in Germany on that date, then we can remove it. Oz talk 04:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The release date AND the official album cover are finally out. May 8th 2012 is the date, so can you take March 16th off?
http://cbreezy.com/2012/02/chris-browns-fortune-official-album-cover/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 01:13, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The UK gets the album a day earlier, on the 7th.
http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/29866035/Fortune/Product.html?searchstring=chris+brown+fortune&searchsource=0&searchtype=allproducts&urlrefer=search  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC) 
 Done Oz talk 01:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The release date for "Fortune" is May 7th in France and 99% sure it's May 4th in Germany but I just can't find an article for it.
http://www.chrisbrownworld.com/fr/news/d%C3%A9couvrez-la-cover-de-fortune-le-nouvel-album-de-chris-brown  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.23.79.50 (talk) 21:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC) 

 Done Oz talk 03:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A new promotional image for the upcoming album was released.
http://a0.twimg.com/profile_images/1942413501/image.jpg
It includes the song titles Strip, Turn Up the Music and Don't Wake Me Up. Does this indicate that these songs are confirmed?  -- User:2nyte 7:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source about the image because I can't use the source you provided. If it really is a promotional image for the album, then yes those songs are confirmed. But let's just wait until the full track listing is revealed before we make any changes to the article. Oz talk 09:26, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Italy will get this album the same day as the U.S. on the 8th.
http://www.chrisbrownworld.com/it/news/il-nuovo-album-di-chris-brown-fortune-uscir%C3%A0-l8-maggio (MusicMusic101 (talk) 13:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC))

 Done Oz talk 20:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

According to this article the official next single to this album is "Sweet Love". Can you add it to the list of singles? Here's the single cover for the song. Oh and this article also says that "Strip" will be on the album.
http://www.rap-up.com/2012/03/30/single-cover-chris-brown-sweet-love/ (71.193.113.65 (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Already mentioned in the article. All that's waiting is a digital or radio release date. Oz talk 12:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ozurbanmusic stated the release date of the single Sweet Love will be April 17, though has no source to confirm this.
Amazon does state the single will be released on April 13. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Sweet-Love/dp/B007RL6U4A/ref=sr_shvl_album_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1333892596&sr=301-1 -- User:2nyte 11:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I was not the user who added the April 17 date to the article in the first place. And if you look at the green box at the top right corner of that source it says April 17. Singles are NOT released in the US on Fridays (April 13). Its either Mondays or Tuesdays (April 17). Oz talk 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a bit of confusion about the release date because a lot of people are suspecting a push back. The official Sony newsletter for Germany says that it won't be released there until June 22nd instead of May 4th. Reliable? You can chose but I still think the album will be pushed back until June. Won't be announced until later though.
http://schattenblick.org/infopool/musik/fakten/mflb3176.html (71.193.113.65 (talk) 11:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC))

That could be the Germany release date because it mentions that "Turn Up the Music" was released on April 6. We should wait for a press release from his record label. Oz talk 20:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Chris just announced through Twitter that Fortune will be released on July 3rd. There are multiple sources, and here's one.
http://singersroom.com/content/2012-04-22/Chris-Brown-Pushes-Fortune-Release-to-July/

The source you used for Australia's release date says that the album comes out on July 6th there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.98.141 (talk) 23:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC) 

Polow Da Don went on Twitter to confirm "Calypso" as an iTunes Bonus Track. And also the purple cover is for the DELUXE version, not the standard.
http://www.tapemastersinc.net/2012/05/29/chris-brown-reveals-final-fortune-tracklisting/
Tweet link: https://twitter.com/PolowDaDon/status/207475260273078272 (98.215.98.141 (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC))

http://www.chrisbrownworld.com/us/news/chris-brown-reveals-official-fortune-tracklisting  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.98.141 (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC) 

http://www.hmv.co.jp/en/product/detail/4979123  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.163.138 (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC) 

The release date is scheduled for Tuesday, July 3 2012, not June 29 2012. http://www.amazon.com/Fortune-Deluxe-Version-Chris-Brown/dp/B007FZ7R7W
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/chris-brown-album-fortune-drake-341349
http://www.myplaydirect.com/chris-brown/?cid=lg:mja
98.220.81.55 (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:ALBUM, the album's first release date should only be in the infobox and that is June 29. The July 3 date is for the US and Canada. There is a table in the 'Release history' section of this article with different release dates. Oz talk 05:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Biggest Fan" in the track listing credits Jermaine Jackson with a link to the guy from the Jackson 5 when it should not link to anyone since the Jermaine Jackson who co-wrote the song is part of "The Runners" production team. Two different people.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.74.107 (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC) 

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fortune (Chris Brown album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ojorojo (talk · contribs) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'll review this. Don't mind the "7 days" bot message, it will take whatever time is necessary (I'm in no hurry). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Infobox
Producers: There's a long list of producers. I've seen this in other articles, but I wonder if this is too much detail for an infobox ("to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article"). Has anybody thought of a better way to handle this? (Using collapsed material is generally discouraged, see MOS:COLLAPSE). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Using collapsed material is generally discouraged, except for navigation-type purposes (track lists, etc.). Is there some accepted practice for this? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Another editor has initiated a related discussion on WT:ALBUMS. We'll see if anything comes of it. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The parameter is still being discussed. It's best to leave this as it is until something is decided. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Singles: #1 was released five months before, #2 & 3 three months before. Template:Infobox album#Template:Singles advises to include "songs on the album that were released as singles during the marketing and promotion of the album". Interest in these may have receded before the album finally was released and therefore weren't really used to promote it. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 Not done as merch for Fortune had been released before the singles were even out
Flatlist: FYI only, several parameters already use class=hlist, so these are unnecessary. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:57, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI, hlist is also unnecessary, see Template:Infobox album#Notes (sometimes these extra templates make semi-auto functions difficult). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done for the initial comments except where noted, can't wait for more! --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Lead
The lead is supposed to summarize "the most important points" (MOS:LEAD). Judging from the amount of discussion in the main body, some of the points do not appear that important: the fact that Jive disbanded and when; the various producers besides The Underdogs (should "The" be treated like MOS:THEMUSIC?). The sales points are emphasized, but there is little about the musical style and song writing. Some info about the lyrics and production would help explain the critical reviews. The lead ends with a mention of Brown's promos; some more info about his ongoing performances and which songs have become an important part of his repertoire would help show the album's significance. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Should I add a Music and lyrics section then? Will need to know about this before I rewrite the lead, understandably I presume. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes, it's better to write the lead last. Anyway, with recent events, it is better to be thorough. WP:ALBUMSTYLE advises on layout, including a "Musical style, writing, composition" section. Some album articles approach this song by song, but you are in a better position to know what would work best. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Looking alright now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
I'll be getting into this. A couple of things: "the" in Underdogs is now lower case in the lead, but the others use a capital (also elsewhere in the article); there's still no info about the musical style in the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done but left The as capitalized in credits as it should be
So, it's "the Underdogs", but "The Runners", "The Messengers"? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
 Done forgot about that lol.
Background and recording
This section begins with a work in progress. Is there any more background info about when the project started, with whom, concepts, etc.? The second sentence includes quotes that an aim was to make a club-style R&B album. How about something like: "Work for Fortune began in [month] 2011, when Brown began collaborating with Kevin McCall for an upcoming album. The idea was to create material that reflects earlier R&B efforts by Brown [and others] in a more club-oriented style." Some more paraphrasing would help reduce the number of quotes. Also, stringing quotes together makes it choppy; more prose makes it flow better. Is mentioning NeonLimeLight.com worthwhile (there's no article link)? The link to RTT doesn't seem to mention Banner or the album.
"he revealed...saying", "revealed...tweeting", "spoke more...saying", etc.: This construction seems repetitious; maybe: "In his Twitter account, Brown revealed, "LAST TWO WEEKS..."", etc.
"that didn't make...": Avoid contractions (except for quotes).
 Done for all

Music and lyrics
The first paragraph would also benefit from less quotes; with paraphrasing, the writers and their publications don't need to be identified, except for controversial claims. Also, prose usually has a more natural flow like speech. This applies to most of the rest of the article as well, except for Critical reception.
 Not done as writers are commonly identified with publications
Overuses of quotes have been pointed out as leading to copyvio problems, especially when the material can be paraphrased. Also, strings of quotes read like reviewer's comments, rather than an attempt to provide an analysis of the musical content. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
I think this is fine.
"Accomplished R&B" and "fully adult R&B" aren't necessarily "featherweight". Does the leap backward refer to the lightweight material, an older "safer" style, or ?
Refers to a leap forwards instead of going backward, reword suggestions?
Since there are contradictory points here, it's unclear what this is trying to say. The "Critical reception" section is more appropriate for opinionated material, while this should be more analytical. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
What should I write instead?
Maybe some more on who wrote what, with some mention of songs (slow, upbeat, instrumentation, etc.) Billboard does a track by track; not necessary here, but some more specifics would be helpful.
Listing writers and which songs they did you mean?
Discussion rather than listing. This GA (picked completely at random) includes a more developed "Composition" section, which is essentially "Lyrics and music".  —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Maybe help me select which sources to use from the article?
"Swagginess"?: "Brown [and ?] wrote all the lyrics for Fortune and they focus a lot on sex and his conquests. He frequently mentions his genitalia and his ability to get women to disrobe. Along with the sexualized themes are his boasts of being an insider on the the club scene and general bravado of one who is an accomplished player." Not sure if it's correct, but that's the general idea.
Don't understand you?
Instead of three brief sentences, a more developed narrative should be provided. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
—Ojorojo (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Maybe help me select which sources to use from the article?
You know the subject, genre, and sources. Do you really think the "Music and lyrics" section is GA quality?  It's dwarfed by the "Release" and "Promotion" sections, but is more important to understand the album. Some GAs have come under scrutiny, so a cautious approach seems prudent. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:55, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Had a look and I def can expand, will start tomorrow!
Now with 13% more swagginessosity! Can't wait to see the rest. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
OK, we've explored this enough. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Great!
Release and artwork
"United States", "United Kingdom": "US" and "UK" are well-known enough to use and preferred for subsequent appearances (see MOS:ACROFIRSTUSE Exceptions). This apples for rest of article also. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done
"in the European countries of Germany...": The names should be enough. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done
Promotion
"His set list composed of thirteen songs which were...": "was composed of thirteen songs: Turn..." ("which were" isn't needed); also I count twelve. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done
"Tour": A separate heading and Template:Main article isn't really needed – there are only three sentences and the tour name could be linked instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
 Done
Singles
Just a thought: there's a lot of detail (date/chart/position) here that might lend itself to a table, with the reviews kept as prose. Up to you. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Nah, interesting food for thought though
There are numerous links (also in the two preceding sections) to iTunes stores, Amazon, HMV, etc. WP:NOTRSMUSIC discourages links to retail sites. Aren't there other sources (press releases, Brown's website, or record company) that can be used instead? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
After reading that, shouldn't it be fine as long as I'm not using the links for credits/similar content?
Since they shouldn't be used as sources, there is no need to link them. For example, the first sentence in "Promotion" has two sources for the release of "Strip", yet there are three "Citations regarding the digital release", which are links to itunes. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Should I just keep the buzz single sources and, within the remainder of the article, radio release dates consistently? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:49, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Keeping the reliable sources and removing the retail links throughout the article would be consistent, or? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done
The still are a number of "Citations regarding the release of" and others with links to itunes, amazon, hmv, etc. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ojorojo:, sorry about the late response but have responded though should the sources be removed from track listings or the track listings deleted? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
It would be better to source the album(s) directly using {{cite AV media notes}}. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done One cite AV media notes (for the standard edition?) is used; use additional ones for the deluxe editions (use |edition= or such to differentiate) to replace the retailers. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what you mean, where do I cite it and which source(s) specifically should be used?
Added examples in a test edit (need to fill in info). —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Critical reception
Accolades: "See also" is normally used to link articles that expand on the topic. In this case, it looks like all the relevant info about the album is included here, so the link is unnecessary. If not, add more instead. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done
Track listing
 Done Hidden tracks: There's not much here, so maybe displayed is OK. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Certifications
 Done The citation for Sweden displays the error "type, position, AND certweek ARE REQUIRED FOR SWEDISH CERTIFICATIONS AFTER 2011." —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
How do I fix this?
Template:Certification Table Entry has some explanations for the parameters – apparently they need entries. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Had to remove the certification as it can't be found.
References
This explains use of work/website and publisher (|publisher= should not be used for the name of a work, etc.). Better to be consistent. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done
Several citations use |publisher= for the name of a work, website, or news outlet instead of |work=, |website=, |newspaper=, etc. According to the linked guide, "The 'publisher' parameter should not be included for widely-known mainstream news sources, for major academic journals, or where it would be the same or mostly the same as the work". —Ojorojo (talk) 14:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done but had to use publisher for sources that should not be italicized, as inserting italics doesn't work any more for them
The linked guide indicates that publisher should not be used for the title of a work, without any exceptions for "sources that should not be italicized". Can you show where you got this? —Ojorojo (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 Done couldn't find any sources but if the websites aren't italicized usually then why should they be in refs? But have to comply with what Wiki says, though this should be brought up somewhere on a talk page maybe...
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
Most are also incorporated into the comments above.
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
OK, we're about ready to wrap this up. I made a couple of minor tweaks, correct/revert as you see fit. Please fix the issues marked "pending" above. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:28, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ojorojo: Responding to everything, pass time? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Pass/Fail:  — All done. Congrats! —Ojorojo (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't exactly know how in this world this section was given the green light in the latest GA review with the prose that it has. I'm not at all defending the subject matter of the songs on this record, but I know that on Wikipedia the policy is neutral point of view and beyond the second sentence this is definitely not that. Like I said months ago when I tagged it the first time, it is by all means well-cited and does reflect the views of many sources on the content, but it does NOT synthesize the information in those sources that describes the musical and lyrical content in an unbiased manner. Though it does talk about the content itself (albeit from a clearly negative POV), it also states subjective interpretations/opinions as facts and is full of editorializing. As a result, the voice of the prose comes across far more like something from a piece by The Guardian rather than an album article on Wikipedia.
If you'd like to dismiss me as some huge Breezy fan/defender (which I'm not) and/or leave it exactly the way it is because I'm wrong and there is no issue with it whatsoever – understand that this is perfectly fine with me since it wouldn't affect me in any way. All I'm doing is acting in the interest of WP, not any particular entity, since it's not a good precedent if there are pockets of the site where WP:POV is allowed and encouraged due to the consensus view/decision amongst editors that the relevant content is morally objectionable and must be decried, even though really, consensus is meant to uphold the five pillars – and by no coincidence, one of those very pillars is that Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. At its core, this is so that no unequal weight is given to ANY particular point of view as to allow the reader to apply what they've read to decide on the correct perspective for themselves, from their own POV. 
Now, you can say that for this particular example POV isn't a factor because it IS just stating facts, and you would be more or less correct and I'd agree – but ultimately, the WAY it states them here just isn't very encyclopedic. I welcome any dicussion on this matter, thanks! Coderenius (☎) 21:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging @Kyle Peake: and @Nice4What: in this discussion. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 10:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
@Coderenius: Since Kyle Peake and Nice4What are not gonna response to this, I say change it. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 08:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a pattern of blatant vandalism and cherrypicking on this article whereby conseriable sourced content is being removed without justification or any sound explination. Moreover, cherrypicking is being done to selectively highlight only negative reception, thereby violating WP:NPOV. It's quite sad to see this kind of editorial biased, which is consistent with the editorial bias present on other album articles of said artist. Failure to provide justification for all these changes on this talk page will result in the article being reverted to its prior state before the vandalism occured.

I agree with you, these last edits by user Aardwolf68 are clearly directioned towards his personal hatred of the artist  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lionel juners (talk • contribs) 11:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)