Talk:A Young Trophy Band in the Parlance of Our Times/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 21:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Coming soon.
two week update
[edit]I probably shouldn't have taken this right before I started a new job, but I have been keeping tabs on it, I promise. I wanted to do some more deep diving before I made any official analysis, but this seems to have many of the same problems with source reliability Won does at first look. I would like to give this more grace, but I'm not sure if I have any choice. Assessing the job here is difficult, and I haven't finished that yet. I'll let you know when I've made a decision, plus any constructive criticism I can give. It's a shame, because this is generally very well written - one of the better EPs I've ever read on. dannymusiceditor oops 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Finishing this up (God, I should stop doing these)
[edit]Alright, I've waited long enough. After some deliberation and conferring with a colleague, I cannot in good conscience pass this. If the sourcing in Won was found to be grossly unacceptable, I can't justify saying otherwise here, as much as I'd like to. It's a valiant effort, but much of this information isn't kept by anyone qualified to be cited on an encyclopedia. If this is what you're forcing yourself to dig up for sources, then you might have to begin asking yourself whether this topic is even notable enough for Wikipedia simply based on web sources. Print sources are most likely necessary.
I have compared the list of what was twice reviewed on Won and see serious overlap. Consequently, I'm not going to list them here. If you have questions about whether any particular additions or existing sources are acceptable and why, you are more than welcome to ask me and I will give you the best and most human answer I can.
In addition to the sourcing concerns, so many parts of this article go into far too much intricate detail. These I can list some of:
- You name every single band they toured with in the touring cycle in the lead, I presume to beef up the content of the lead? (I say this not in bad faith but because I used to do that so I'm wondering.) That is quite excessive, especially considering the last of them don't even have articles on Wikipedia; if they aren't notable on-wiki, why would they be here?
- Apparently, there's no section on background history right before the album, though you've made an effort to cite plenty of relevant info about this across many of these Florida hardcore articles you seem to love. Group what would surround the beginnings and preceding events of this EP into a background section. This, of course, would all be banking on the sourcing being reliable, which it is generally not; I am just providing this point as a guideline to follow in the future.
- Composition and recording is mighty long - enough that it should be two sections. For instance, you have several tours mentioned in this section, and that would be an example of things you would put either in promotion (if you wanted to structure it with shows prior to its release) or the aforementioned missing background section.
- For a guide on the above two points in regard to how to approach this kind of thing structurally, I would recommend looking at my FA work on Jimmy Eat World's Bleed American.
- On the contrary, critical reception is insufficient. A list of 14 different names of bands that influenced the album is not critical reception. Six individually sourced adjectives is not critical reception. What about these artists did reviewers find came through on the EP? What did critics like or dislike? You haven't quoted a single one, and I (and pretty much everyone) would expect several. How was Wisner's production praised? You're on the right track describing Moyal's vocal reception: singled out by many critics who admired his ability to sing and scream with equal dexterity. Brilliant! Bring this kind of message forward with all received aspects of the EP. As it stands now, it reads completely lifelessly.
- It would be nice if you sourced the release history section too. I did see you put it in the body, but it's generally expected of a GA.
Side note: I personally would argue in favor of Punknews and Punk Planet, and in small doses even As Friends Rust's primary outlet. But not all this scraping of the barrel's bottom.
I'm sorry if I made you wait so long for something that might potentially read as harsh. I don't mean it that way, I'm just trying to explain why I made my decision and hopefully bring some advice and sense of direction toward what needs to be done for this article. Best of luck. dannymusiceditor oops 05:30, 28 December 2022 (UTC)