Talk:A Crow Looked at Me

anthony fantano album of decade

The album appeared at number 18 on his AOTD list, should that be included in the article? 6equj5 2444 (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

No. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

(after)

should the live album (after) be mentioned. If so where?

• Maybe in the 'release' section, there should be some mention of the touring he did to promote the album, and (after) would fit in nicely there. This might make the 'release' section into more of a 'release & promotion' section. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Of course, mention it. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Had a bash at this. — sparklism ^hey! 20:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Night place

Should the poem be presented as how it is now or in its original formating?

Next Steps

Popcornfud, BLZ, Moisejp; DMT biscuit has put in serious work here, and is looking to put at FAC. They have had two PRs, with limited success. IMO it needs a thorough copy edit yet, and oversight on tone re reviews etc. Calling in the heavies as think this article has grand potential if we all pitch in. Obv its a great great album, with a more than touching backstory. Ceoil (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Would love to help. I've been periodically following DMT biscuit's work here and on Now Only (which I created as more-or-less a stub and he's taken much further). The development of this article in particular has been really impressive. I agree it's reasonably close to FAC status and worth rolling up that hill.

I'll be able to review the article with a fine-tooth comb soon, but one initial concern is the copyright status of Mount Eerie, Poster Jan 6.jpg (cropped from this image). Cropping the hand-drawn pumpkin was wise and necessary, since the pumpkin drawing is certainly copyrightable, but unfortunately I don't think what's left is indisputably public domain. If the text on the poster were just the text in black (basic info like artist name, venue name, and time), it would be minimal enough to fall below the threshold of originality. However, the smaller text in blue and orange is extensive (bringing the poster's total word count to ~115) and contains elements of unique creative expression (e.g. Phil's jokey aside about art walks and especially the final graf cautioning listeners about the lyrical content). As a whole the poster text almost certainly constitutes an original copyright-eligible work and is presumptively nonfree for the same reason a scan/screenshot of a brief essay or poem would be.

I'd recommend, regretfully, that the file should probably be removed from Commons. But there's still a way it could stay: someone could email Phil requesting permission to freely license the poster, which if he accepts could then be processed through OTRS. I think it's worth a shot. Elverum's independence and ownership of his own music and visual work puts him in the rare position of being the only person whose permission we'd need for something like a promotional concert poster, and given his reputed approachability, DIY-mindedness, and generosity of spirit I think he'd be at least open to the idea. Doing so would not clear up any doubt about our ability to use the work, but it would allow use of the whole poster including the illustration. Other than that, imo the article's extensive use of free-license images is exceptional. —BLZ · talk 00:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sound. I get the impression that a fine-tooth comb soon review would be very much worthy and appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I've communicated via email with Phil before - happy to do as BLZ suggests around this image. User:DMT_biscuit, everyone, happy for me to do that? Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 14:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, User:Sparklism. If for whatever reason it falls through than, per BLZ's assessment, it should be removed. Regarding mentions of copyedit, it is currently listed, although by all means separate edits can and should be made: )DMT biscuit (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've emailed Phil. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Hey User:Sparklism. Did you get a response? Thanks.DMT biscuit (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Nothing yet User:DMT_biscuit, he's probably busy making awesome records... — sparklism ^hey! 08:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok User:Sparklism. We should probably put a time-frame in place: Sunday?DMT biscuit (talk) 08:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

So there has been no response from Phil so far. I'll let you know if that changes. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 09:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, flattered to be included among the "heavies". :-) I hope you're all well. I don't have much Wiki time these days, and can't promise, but I will sincerely try to chip in. This article looks interesting and as you say has good potential. Moisejp (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. Hey Ceoil, cool, this article mentions Julie Doiron. She's the bassist in that Eric's Trip "View Finder" video you said you liked. Moisejp (talk) 04:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

More BLZ comments

Starting my own section here to avoid cluttering general discussion

• This issue is fairly minor in the scheme of things, but raises the possibility of a big choice that is better to consider sooner in the process than later. I noticed that there's a long bulleted list in footnote 114. The length makes the footnote a bit unwieldy, plus due to formatting limitations it starts with a plain asterisk rather than the first bullet of the list. There doesn't seem to be a workaround for the asterisk issue, but it's conventionally avoided by adding a little intro sentence, usually a brief note indicating the overarching purpose for citing those sources. In this case, it would be something like "Favorable reviews of Elverum's performance at the Jacobikerk include:" and then the list. In principle you could achieve the same workaround by starting the footnote with a nonbreaking space then starting a new line after it, but in practice that looks a little odd.

Asterisk aside, there's still the underlying issue that the footnote list is a bit of a multi-car pile-up. I get why you did it this way, since it's far better to have a long-ish list tucked within a footnote than have a long "^{[168][43][12][84][10][101][11][2][19][34]}" in the prose. But a note like this is difficult to meaningfully navigate on desktop and nigh-impossible on mobile. Two possible fixes:

1. Create a note (efn-style) that contains a sentence like "Favorable reviews of Elverum's performance at the Jacobikerk were published in The Independent,^[1] the Evening Standard,^[2] ..." and so on. Not only would that be easier to navigate but, by converting the list into prose, it would stake a claim that will be more readily comprehensible, compelling, and reasonably qualified as to its extent.
2. Switch the whole article over to harv-style references, using templates like sfn, Harvnb, etc. for footnotes with a full bibliography of all citations at the end. Good models with this citation system are Pod (The Breeders album) and Maxinquaye. This would be a somewhat drastic change and, just to be clear, by absolutely no means do you have to make a change like this unless you decide it's something you'd prefer. I'm only recommending it at this point as an option for your consideration—clearly it would be cruel to even recommend making a switch this big any later, lol.
   From my own experience, I used to use <ref> tags but, after working with other editors who used Harvard citations, over time I've been convinced it's much neater, much more flexible, and much easier to manage/navigate as both as an editor and a reader. I also find it's better for adding quotations within citations, since it's way more readable and gives you the liberty to pull different quotes from the same source to back up unrelated claims from different parts of your article, if necessary.
   If you haven't used the Harvard-style citations before there's a small learning curve, but it'd be fairly simple (if tedious, admittedly) to convert all your existing citations into a single bibliography; you'd just add ref=harv to each "cite" template to make them usable as Harvard citations. Again no pressure, just a possible option to consider if you'd like to give it a shot.

If you do like the overhaul option #2 I'd recommend doing #1 in addition, but that said #1 alone works just fine. —BLZ · talk 21:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi DMT Biscuit. I totally agree with BLZ for #2 for all the reasons he gave. Of course, it could very much be considered a matter of preference, so like he said, there's no pressure from me either. But, yeah, I'd say if you're aiming for FA, why not make it as clean, neat, and flexible as possible, and easier to manage/navigate as both as an editor and a reader? Just a suggestion. :-) Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I am familiar with Harv ref system (I've worked on Anarchism) and do intend to add it (this was something i considered before as you could see in the edit history of this talk page.) I've placed a major edit tag at the top.

Image Removal

BLZ,Moisejp, — sparklism, It's been a bit of time since the copyright issue was first brought to attention, with Elverum himself seemingly unresponsive. I as such ask if we should undergo with its removal?DMT biscuit (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• Certainly it seems unlikely that he will respond to the request now. I'd suggest removal, we can always re-add if things change. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 12:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

  Ok. I've nominated it for deletion. We'll see how it goes over. DMT biscuit (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Citations & Last Area of Intrest

@Brandt Luke Zorn:,@Moisejp:,@Sparklism:,@Ceoil: CITE SWITCH IS DONE. finally. It was a rewarding experience. I can't guarantee that the ICs are perfect so feel to give them a comb-over—I will in the mourning.

So rounding off this assessment, I want to bring you attention to the reception section. This part has been brought up as in need of a rewriting but personally speaking, I can't see any glaring issues. I suspect this is due to bias, so I want to get yours input. Thanks.DMT biscuit (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Frankly, I think the section is weak and disappointing. Its quote heavy, stats heavy, and a bit he said / but on the other hand she said. This is one of the major, heavyweight albums of the 2010's, and lead to a particularly interesting internal debate among music critics, but thats not "readibly" apparent here, until after we have to wade through shit like "On Metacritic, a review-aggregator website that assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from music critics, the album received an average score of 93 based on 18 reviews, indicating "universal acclaim".[124]"

As said a few times, I think the work done here by you is first rate, but there is fluff still; if I was you would butcher the section, moving it away from the play by play, review by review format, more towards a more big picture view. Nice work on the refs by the way, that wasn't easy, and hope these comments make sense. Ceoil (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

also, would retitle "legacy" (which is a bit pretentious, the album is not 350 years old) as "influence" (it most certainly is that). Ceoil (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I have done a bold rework of the section, I tried to articulate common themes and comments throughout reviews. Again if you have any issues feel through to air them; they all go towards improvement.DMT biscuit (talk) 13:07, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a great improvement thanks; apologies for my somewhat grumpy request :) Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

It's fine. Sometimes you need a (verbal) boot up the backside.

Hi @DMT biscuit:. I hope you're well. Until now I've been too busy to look at this hardly at all, but now I'm on my Christmas holidays, and I'm pretty sure I'll have some time. I started reading the article in earnest just now, and I noticed some things I'd like to suggest. I'll probably have time to give a "full review". I notice the article has already had two peer reviews—sorry I missed them. I don't know if you'd want to start a third one; if you do, I'd promise to leave at least some comments there, maybe more than just some. To be honest, I've only read the first part so far, and am only guessing I might have a proportionally similar number of comments for the parts I haven't read yet. Anyways, if you don't want to open another peer review, another option is I could just leave the comments here on the talk page. If I end up having lots and lots of comments, though, it could get possibly too long for a usual "talk page comments" section (but, as I hinted at above, the reverse is also possible, and if you open a peer review, it's possible I could have fewer comments than I thought). Just let me know. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 08:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Moisejp:. I think the sake of keeping things neetly in one package best to have the comments on here.DMT biscuit (talk) 16:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Moisejp

As discussed above, I'll put my comments here:

Lead:

• "Elverum planned the record to be a small-scale release, possibly under a different name, but he dismissed both of these ideas."

- It may be personal preference, but I wouldn't use "dismissed" exactly like this, but would tend to use the word when rejecting someone else's ideas. In the current situation I'd suggest "changed his mind". If you disagree, no worries.

- I may have missed it, but does the main text say he planned it to be a small-scale release? What I see is "Elverum planned to record the album with a live band in a studio".

-Release and Promotion: "He had originally planned a small-scale release on his website, but as the album took shape he felt it was good and wanted it to reach a wider audience.[90]" DMT biscuit (talk) 08:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Background and composition:

• "Elverum realised he did not have to find meaning in Castrée's death and that he could write songs that describe the experience". I think this is trying to say that rather than dwelling on finding meaning, the songs were more "objective" or "distanced" in that they described the Elverum's experience. But is it possible to make the contrast between the two clearer? I had to read the sentence several times had a somewhat clear idea of how the two may be intended to be different. In some instances, there could be overlap between minding meaning and relating experiences.
• In the third paragraph of the section, there are a lot of sentences that begin with Elverum + verb. It'd be great to rearrange the sentence structure for some of these. In three sentences in a row, there is the verb "used". Consider trying to find an alternate way to express this for at least one of the sentences. (Sometimes the verb "utilize" can be a good substitute for "use"; you could decide whether that would work here, or whether you have other ideas for adding variety in this section.) Moisejp (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
• The next comment is something I strive for when I write this kind of article, and it's something that is subtle. My experience is that most editors don't pay attention at all to this—don't have an awareness of the distinction I'm going to mention—and so I never insist on this, because other people may subsequently edit away from this style anyway. The other thing is that if what I'm proposing (which is to use more present perfect) is used in excess, the writing can become heavy and plodding; that's another reason why I say it's "subtle" because even in using this writing technique, a balance needs to be found.

So basically what I want to propose is that there should be two timelines here: one where he was doing the stuff (writing notes, recording, etc.) and another timeline where he has talked about his feelings/observations/memories of what he did, mostly after the fact. The simple past (he recorded, he wrote, he compiled, etc.) is used for the stuff he did, and the present perfect ("he has said", "he has recalled") for what he has said about it after. You already have one instance of that in this section: "He has also said he does not view the album as a tribute to Castrée or as being about her." But in other instances, you currently just use the simple past everywhere, including where he has talked about it, presumably after the fact, for example: "He expressed disbelief that he was able to make an album under the circumstances." When the simple past is used everywhere, this "flattens" the two timelines into one, and it becomes harder for the reader to guess when Elverum may have said the things.

As I said above, if the present perfect is used too much, the writing can become heavy. Thus, other strategies can be used in tandem with it for separating the two timelines: for example, sometimes use the simple past but with a time marker that separates it from the first timeline, such as: "Elverum later said" or "he stated in a 2019 interview that".

Even if some of the things he said he happens to have said, say, during the recording (i.e., these could conceivably be included in the first timeline) I don't think it hurts to use the present perfect for these in some cases, to still separate this as a "what he has said about the process" level of narration.

Anyway, see what you think of this. As I mentioned, I never insist on this, although I personally think it makes for more elegant and nuanced writing. Moisejp (talk) 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Moisejp: Implemented your comments, with the exception of the last one which is a good suggestion and I am going to look over to try and work with. EDIT: I tried my hand at changing the tense, as you say and its subtle and so i don't know if i got everything down right—feel free to bring up any issues you see. DMT biscuit (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Cool. I'll look at your changes and start looking at the next section within the next couple of days or so. Moisejp (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I liked your changes! I made a couple more suggested small edits. I'll try to get to looking at the next section very soon. Moisejp (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Music and lyrics:

• "although A Crow Looked at Me focuses more on the grieving process and its mundane aspects than these albums". Consider attributing this to Zacharias within the text itself. I don't think this is a black-or-white issue where such text always needs to be attributed in the text itself, but this jumps out at me as an instance where it would be easy to do so. (Likely as I'm reading through this I may suggest other instances too.) Moisejp (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• "Lasting less than four minutes on average, the songs are short..." Seems a bit repetitive to me, but if you have a particular reason for mentioning both points, maybe it's OK. I'd suggest trying to rework this somehow, but depending on what you are trying to achieve with this sentence, I'm not sure what the best solution is, or whether what's there now is the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

  Attempted rework while still including the same info. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• "They also include unresolved notes and chords' the ending of "Seaweed" hangs on a half-step descent major chord" Seems like there's a missing word here?? Not sure what this is trying to say. Moisejp (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

   Self-trout Mistake. Now resolved. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

• "Elverum himself described it as "barely music" ": The sentence before this is talking about a contrast, whereas I think "it" is referring to this particular album. Would be clearer to spell out what it is referring to here. Moisejp (talk) 21:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
• "Elverum has expressed regret for having to repeatedly describe and sing about her final days." This sentence is not clear to me. Why "having to"?
• " "Ravens"—and "Soria Moria"—stand apart from the other songs due to the use of multiple changes of tempo.[66] It features multi-tracked guitar, piano chords and percussion accompaniment." Consider switching these two sentences? The "It" in the second sentence is not as clear as it could be because the previous sentence mentions two songs, and "Ravens" is not the last one mentioned. Another possibility of course would be to replace "It" with "Ravens" again, but that would be a bit repetitive-sounding. Moisejp (talk) 07:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

  Completed. DMT biscuit (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• "The song was inspired by a dinner Elverum had at a friend's house." Just a minor comment, but I wonder if this detail is too vague to be meaningful. But I really don't have a strong opinion if you have reason to keep it in. Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
• "The lyrics of "Soria Moria" detail the painting; as Elverum finds solidarity in its figure who overlooks a chasm." The grammar of "; as" feels unusual to me. I'd suggest rewording it, unless you feel very strongly you'd like to keep it.

By the way, just to let you know, now that the winter holidays are over I'm going to have less Wiki time. I would like to keep chipping away at my edits and comments here, but I hope you don't mind if it's not speedy going. I'm juggling looking at this with a couple of other projects I have on the go. From what I've read so far, this article looks really good, and if you're patient enough to let me slowly work my way to the end—and assuming everything in the second half is about equal quality as the first—I expect I will be supporting when you take it to FA. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Moisejp:. Just checking that you're still up for doing the comments. DMT biscuit (talk) 23:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

• The last paragraph in Tracks 8–11 has a bit too much repetition of words. The word "crow" is used twice in the first sentence (not sure whether there is an easy fix for that, but if you think of one, all the better—if not, no worries). But worse, "crow" is the last word of the first sentence and then the first word of the second sentence. "Include" and "song" are used in both the second and third sentences. (Not sure if it's your thing—if not, no problem—but in some articles I've used the word "composition" and "song" interchangeably to add variety. Depending on the context you may also be able to use "track", which I think you have used elsewhere in the article.)
• "It is the only song that refers to events beyond Elverum's life; he describes the world as "[s]moldering and fascist", referring to the 2016 United States presidential election.[17] The crow is used in the song as a personification of Castrée.[91] The thematic throughlines of the album are concluded in the final lyrics: "And there she was"." To be honest, this part seems a bit vague and/or scattered to me. It jumps around, and some of the statements don't have enough tangible detail (for me, at least) to be sure what they're talking about. Moisejp (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  That's ok. Take your time. The article still has to undergo copyediting before FAR. I've tackled your issues and done some reworking

• "Due to the overwhelming response" and "Elverum asked that fans stay away". I sort of guess this means the fans were crowding the stage and he told them to stand back, but could you reword this so that it's a bit clearer? Moisejp (talk) 07:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
• In the Release and promotion second, I recommend merging the third and fourth paragraphs, and talking about the release of both singles at the same time, and then avoid having to say the repetitive song-of-the-week/month bits twice. Maybe something like this (feel free to tweak this, it's just a rough idea):

"Crow", the first track to be released, appeared on the charity album Is There Another Language? on January 20, 2017.[94] The opening single "Real Death" was released on SoundCloud on January 25, 2017; second single "Ravens" came out on February 15, with a music video uploaded to Mount Eerie's official YouTube account. The video consists of camcorder recordings of Elverum and Castrée, interspersed with natural landscapes. Following the respective release of each single, each was rated the best song of the week by Stereogum, as well as "Best New Track" and one of the greatest of the month by Pitchfork. Complex likewise included "Crow" among its favorites of the month.

I like my sentence above the best, but here are a couple of other possible versions I came up, just in case you prefer one of these:

• Both singles were rated by Stereogum as the best song of the week after their respective releases, and by Pitchfork as "Best New Track" and then as one of the greatest of the month.
• Stereogum rated both singles as the best song of their respective release weeks, and Pitchfork called both of them "Best New Track" and then one of the greatest of the month. Moisejp (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes implemented.DMT biscuit (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for my slowness. Will try to get a good chunk today if I can.

• "The show at Chicago's Thalia Hall was highlighted for consideration by Chicago magazine." Consider rewording "highlighted for consideration". Current wording seems unclear.
• "having nightmares regarding their performances". Slightly awkward wording. If you have an idea for rewording, would be great.
• "with more elderly attendants than before". Maybe "with a higher average age than before"? "Elderly" makes it sound like a big part of the audience was very old, which I'm guessing is not exactly what's meant? Or if there's a good way to combine the first and second halves of the sentence into one, that could be another good solution. Moisejp (talk) 03:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
• "received a positive reception". A bit awkward.
• "saying that the lo-fi aesthetic was an "essential" decision, said..." Feels repetitive (saying... said).

Before I get any farther, could I make a big comment that I'd say there are too many quotations in the Reception section? I would definitely suggest trying to paraphrase at least half or more of them. Also, are there things people said that are similar enough, or share some elements, whereby you could combine two or more reviews into a single sentence? For example, "Both X and Y commented on such-and-such aspect of the album; X additionally noted/opined that..." Or "Some reviewers found that (such-and-such). X elaborated that..." Maybe the reader doesn't need to know every nuance of what each reviewer said. It's great that you have already grouped the paragraphs by general theme, but are there opportunities to further combine the statements to highlight slightly more specific trends in what reviewers mentioned? Honestly, the section is for me currently a little long and choppy (choppy in that it's one sentence per reviewer-point). What I'm suggesting now would also help to trim out unneeded details and make the section smoother. To find points to combine, if necessary you could also look at details the reviewers said that are not currently included in the article; there might be other usable tidbits in their reviews that can be clumped into mini-trends?

I apologize that I'm throwing this big comment at you so late in the game. It's truly because I've been so busy I've only had small windows of time to work my way through the article line by line, and so didn't really have a chance to look at the Reception section until now. Again, sorry about that. Moisejp (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Changes implemented, including paraphrasing of the paras in reception. If there are still areas there you feel need work, don't fret to highlight them; it's all for the greater good. Curious to hear your thoughts on the quote boxes, I'm conflicted about them being juxtaposed.DMT biscuit (talk) 11:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Elverum recorded the album between August 31 and December 6, 2016, at his house in Anacortes, Washington.[8] He wrote the songs over a six-week period beginning in September 2016." May need clarification how he started writing the songs after he started recording them?

  This was mentioned before, ha. All I can really say is that it's parroting what the sources say. It's very likely that Elverum started "recording" by simply getting some down lyrics and that. Obviously, that's conjecture and can't be added but that's my interpretation. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• I made a suggested edit to try to resolve the issue. I actually pressed return before finishing typing my edit summary. But what I wanted to say is if you don't like that particular idea, let's try to find another solution. There's probably a way to make the wording still true to the source without being explicitly contradictory-sounding. That's what I tried to do. Moisejp (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I think your edit was a good solution. Thanks.DMT biscuit (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• "Due to significant interest and the venue's limited capacity of just 50 people, Elverum asked that fans not attend." Who was the concert for then, if not fans? Who were (or did he expect would be) the 50 people in attendance? Just passers by? This part could use clarification. Moisejp (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• "The performances at Chicago's Thalia Hall were highlighted for consideration by Chicago magazine." I think I understand what this means but each time I have to stop and think about it. "Highlighted for consideration" seems like unusual wording to me. Could it be reworded? Moisejp (talk) 17:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• "He viewed the events as "re-enacting a trauma and charging people money for it" and criticized the sense of voyeurism the audience partook in, although he said that audiences helped him overcome his fear of performing and that he would probably watch a similar performance by another artist, saying "it's hard to look away from a car accident"." If this very long sentence could be broken up into more than one sentence, it would be good. Moisejp (talk) 17:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• "Live performances of A Crow Looked at Me marked a shift in Elverum's audience, to an older average age." I don't have a strong opinion about this (feel free to ignore this comment) but I think it could be an idea to cut this sentence—or expand it to give more details. As it is now, there is not maybe not enough context for the reader to know the related significance or reasons, and the sentence falls just slightly flat. Moisejp (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• The Reception section is looking really a lot better. You replied so quickly after my last comments, that I wasn't expecting this section to be this much improved. Great work! I'm still reading through the section and may still have some comments now or the next time I look at this. (I might have to stop this editing session soon, duties call!)
• "The album's instrumentation, production and aesthetic were subject to praise." Maybe this heading needs to change as a good chunk of the paragraph is not necessarily praise. Moisejp (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• "although it was sufficient for the album's length it would likely be underwhelming on repeat listeners". Does the first part of this sentence mean the album is not very long so the listener has less chance to get bored of the limited variety of instrumentation? Also just confirming you wanted to say "repeat listeners" and not "repeat listens" (a more common phrase). This sentence feels not totally clear to me; maybe it could be clarified more or possibly removed if it doesn't add much to the paragraph. I actually think the ideas in this sentence seem interesting, just not feel they're not totally clear. Also, maybe "may prove too one-dimensional and bare for many" could be easily paraphrased. You removed a lot of direct quotes already from this section, which is good, but I feel if just about two or so more direct quotes could be paraphrased in this section, the balance would be all the better.
• Also not sure that it's valid to use a direct quote here, as it sounds in a way like multiple reviewers said exactly this: "Other critics noted that the album went beyond "the limits of conventional music criticism"." Maybe this would be another good candidate to paraphrase? Moisejp (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• "whose success is discussed on the former, which Elverum described as "part two" " I got a bit lost about what is being referred to here. Moisejp (talk) 18:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
• Should The Onion's listing be removed if the inclusion was ironic? I'm not sure the point of including it.

• I agree with this. The Onion is hardly mainstream, so it doesn't indicate infiltration, or even anything. Ceoil (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Possibly consider putting Metacritic's #16 all-time ranking in the lead? That's very significant because (based on my understanding of how it works) that's saying across rankings of many critics overall, this one ranked the sixteenth best album of all time, right? It's not just one critic saying so, but is a sort of a convergence/consensus of many reviews. Moisejp (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

All changes implemented bar the last one. I generally avoid direct mentions of critics, publications...etc as I feel it gives undue weight. Metacritic is an aggregator but in this instance, it's just averaging the scores, not the average times critics have called it 'one of the best albums'.DMT biscuit (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure when I'll have a chance to look at this again but I would say if you address my last batch of comments then the article is in pretty good shape prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. (Ideally I would have liked to look at your sources too, but not sure I'll have time; I hope someone else may have a chance to delve into that.) So if you address my last batch of comments, I would be inclined to support the article at FAC (assuming it doesn't change too much between now and then). Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I wouldn't worry about not being to do a review on source as a source review will be done at FAC. The article should not see any major changes as I was just waiting for your last comments before FAC submission. Again, thanks.DMT biscuit (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Last Last Area of Intrest

Hi @Brandt Luke Zorn:,@Moisejp:,@Sparklism:,@Ceoil:. Upon further reading and looking over, I find the accolades to be quite aesthetically unpleasing and hard to read. This is, in my opinion, due to it being prose and so having the references in rapid succession. As there a few examples listed I wonder if it would be better converted to tables such as those seen in Loveless (album), 1989 (Taylor Swift album), Today (The Smashing Pumpkins song). I feel that because only select publications are noted, these tables wouldn't be too obstructing. Thanks. DMT biscuit (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Would be in favour of a table...the text as stands is really only just verbalizing the publications and positions. Ceoil (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Mount Eerie, Poster Jan 6.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Referencing issues

@DMT biscuit: I see that you reverted my repairs to the referencing errors in this article. Is there a reason that the error messages in the article are desired? Do you have a plan for fixing them soon? I'm also wondering why this article has a "Citations" section, which is redundant to the "References" section. What is the rationale for listing references in two different places? -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mikeblas: They're there to help pinpoint where the {{sfn} template should go. The article is currently undergoing a citation change and the citations are now being arranged alphabetically. The change should be done by the week.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT biscuit (talk • contribs) 23:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

OK! I'll check back next week. -- Mikeblas (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ok! @Mikeblas: See you then.DMT biscuit (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Ceoil comments

As somebody who edits primarily on paintings and painters, it kills me so say this, but I think the article has too many images. Apart from text squash, some of the more tangential images distract from the impact of the more significant and relevant images and quote boxes. Also...maybe putting them ll in is opposite to the ultra minimalist spirit of the album. Straight up would loose File:Gary Snyder, Mark Kozelek, Julie Doiron, Karl Ove Knausgård, Will Oldham,Joanne Kyger.jpg, which squashes down the most affecting part of the article text. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Would also drop the images captioned American rapper Danny Brown (left) chose A Crow Looked at Me as his favourite album of 2017 while Michelle Zauner....Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I've removed the initial image. This is something I've mulled over and readability has certainly improved by it. I disagree however with that final comment, it provides visual interference and distils the most prominent and disparate—relative to Elverum—artists' praise. Similar to the pics of Davis and Chomsky in OK Computer. DMT biscuit (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@DMT biscuit: That's fine, no real issue with me. Was more concerned with the multi-img pic swamping the sect where her death was being discussed. Watch out though for having images on both the left and right of a para - on some devices this leads to paras that are only a few words wide. Also, left aligned is ok at times...but doing that excessively means having everything on the right becomes repetitive and a little boring. Ceoil (talk) 21:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ceoil: It seems we disagree about the placement of the poem, I think it's best on the right for means of readability; any reasons why it shouldn't? DMT biscuit (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Not a matter I'm willing to go to war over. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Re sources, the following are in the sources but not in the references...Joyce, Colin (VICE), "10 Things You Should Do This Labor Day Weekend (and Beyond), '"A Crow Looked At Me by Mount Eerie". P.W. Elverum And Sun, while Christgau 2018 is used inline, but not named in the sources. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

see also Nelson, Sean; Milne, Stefan; and Will James (May 19, 2018). These are obviously debris after trimming, but would remove. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

In the section Tracks 1-7, do you think the inclusion of a photo of Hadia Gwaii would be beneficial?? Considering it's a significant presence in two songs and mentioned multiple times in the article. DMT biscuit (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't really care. More importantly I think your summarising reviews at too high a level, detailing that they liked the album, rather than why. for eg, both these statements are trite:

• Many reviewers commented upon the album's emotive effect.
• The album's instrumentation and aesthetic received a positive reception. Ceoil (talk) 05:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, this is buried at the end of legacy, while I would have expected it as the opening of the critical reception sect..."A few reviewers found it a difficult album to review." There is so much that could be said about that, and I suspect most listeners felt the same unease in weighing, or even coming to terms with the album. Ceoil (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

While I would love to expand the final section, I've searched through all the reviews on the album and these are the only ones which noted this and I think that they're at a sufficient length; any more could risk violating undue weight. Also, the summarisation is used because one, summery style is advocated per FAC criteria and because this section is supposed to articulate how reviewers one the whole reacted; as a collective not as individuals. DMT biscuit (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, and while have said it before and will say it again, and having read a lot of them, Fantano's review is the strongest for me. But we cant have nice things, although that's not your problem. Ceoil (talk) 11:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure the Onion is a RS instance, given the list is satirical. Ceoil (talk) 21:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• I've included the onion to highlight the album's unique reception. There's a note stating that it is satirical and it is relied upon for further info. DMT biscuit (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• relied upon for further info; I hope NO further info surely. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, miswrote.

WP:GOCE copy edit complete

I have completed a requested copy edit of this article. Here's a diff showing all of my edits. I tried to leave detailed edit summaries explaining what I did, and sometimes why. I left one "clarify" template in the article following a sentence that I was unable to make heads or tails of and that did not appear to match the content of the cited source. I will not be watching this page, but feel free to ping me if you have questions or concerns about my editing choices. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

FYI to editors interested in submitting this article as a potential FA: these recent edits have degraded the prose. In the edits that I made, I was careful to use serial commas, provide the word "that" where it was needed before a dependent clause, and avoid spelling and markup errors. This article has been submitted to the GOCE three(!) times for copy editing, and after each good-faith edit by the GOCE, editors here have returned to the article and degraded the prose. I suspect that there will be significant resistance at the GOCE to accepting it as a request again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I hardly think there's a need for such theatrics and this was always intended to be the final copy edit. Thank You. DMT biscuit (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

No theatrics; just recommendations. I recommend that one of the active editors turn on viewing of hidden categories in their preferences in order to fix the new errors that are listed there. It may help to install one of the scripts listed here; I had fixed all of the reference errors, but recent changes have introduced a bunch of new ones. A spell-check would also improve the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Certainly theatrics.[1] Your edits would have been retained if they were good. But thanks for the technical bits and bobs. Scripts to live by; jesus christ. Good luck, later if ever. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Related, the following sources are not used inline (this could be a nitpicky issue at FAC):

• Anon (December 19, 2019d).
• Anone. "All Time Chart". AnyDecentMusic?
• Richardson, Mark (December 17, 2019)
• Spencer, Matthew (May 2, 2009) Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

All removed. Thanks and cites that were picked up by the user script fixed as well.DMT biscuit (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sound. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Approps of nothing, you have more than enough material to create a separate article for "[Real Death]", which imo is a crowning achievement of mankind in the last 10 years in formulating language as to how we think about and discuss loss, death and loved one's oblivion. This is a request (cough). Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Progress

The article hass been given a very through and skilled reworking by DMT in the last few months. I'm confident now that it is FAC worthy, and would have my support if that happened. Ceoil (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Pitchork AOTY

Folks, apologies if I have missed this somewhere, but I can't see any reference to Pitchfork's 2017 album of the year accolade. The table currently has the reader's poll included, but not the writer's one. I'd say this is fairly significant, and worthy of inclusion. I haven't added it myself because I'm not familiar with the citation style used here and don't wanna mess it up - can someone add it please? Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 10:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Sparklism: How I see it the accolades should only include the 'highest' praise to provide a general overview. In this case that was including only instances of it being rated ten or higher. Pitchfork's ranking was 14, however, this is such a minor difference that it can be deserving of inclusion. I'll leave that your and others discretion, but I'm ultimately not against its inclusion. DMT biscuit (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

P.S. @Sparklism: If you want to learn the cite style I would really recommend this user script: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. DMT biscuit (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2021 (UTC)