Talk:Charm School (Roxette album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Mujinga (talk · contribs) 13:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Initial Comment

• I've given this article a read through and I don't see any glaring problems, so I will take it on for review. Mujinga (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
• Hi @Homeostasis07: and other interested editors, I'm starting the review, and Rater gives me predicted class GA, but I notice that actually it is currently C and there's specific WP:ALBUMS criteria to get to B class, so I'd like that to be done before this review is completed. It's a shame that was overlooked before, since I'm noticing some minor referencing issues that might have been caught earlier. So I would advise that this step is taken, but I'll carry on with the review for now. Tell me if you need the review put on hold. Mujinga (talk) 16:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. And thanks a lot for taking the time to review this, @Mujinga: I was beginning to think no-one would (I've never seen GA this slow... this nomination is 2 weeks shy of a whole year in the queue, which explains why some of the URLs are now outdated). Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Cool - yes I was a bit surprised by the length of time on this ... no Roxette fans on wikipedia? That seems hard to believe.Mujinga (talk) 12:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This probably could have been done a lot quicker, but I don't think it's a particularly good idea for fans or friends to suck up to one another to game the system and get more of their stuff through GA. Just my opinion. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Don't worry that was just an attempt at humour Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hold

@Homeostasis07: So my review has made it as far as the end of the 'release and promotion' section and I keep on running into referencing problems. It may well be indeed that at least some of these are cropping up because of the long wait for review, but I do feel a good sweep should have been done to first get the article to B class. One of the criteria specific for albums is "No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources." I haven't met any blatantly improper sources (although 39 isn't great) but I'm starting to feel a bit swamped by the issues listed below through the review and at References - these include deadlinks, links that need updating and links which don't back the citation. You are also intending to add a ref for T&A. I'm roughly halfway in terms of references and I'm honestly not confident now that all the next 40 references will be good. I'll put the review on hold for a week, hopefully that gives you (or others) time to check the refs and then we can continue. I hope that's ok, happy to discuss further. I do think this article can reach GA status, it just needs a bit more work first. Mujinga (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: I don't know who advised you that articles need to be graded B-class before being nominated for GA, but they were incorrect. The majority of the articles currently listed at WP:GAN#Albums are C-class, although many of the B-listed noms have been done so incorrectly ("This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-Class status:"). I've noticed one or two nominations which are still even graded as Start-class. An article being determined to meet the GA criteria is pretty much all that counts, so it's not uncommon for nominations to jump several grades. I'm sure you're probably frustrated that the article includes more foreign-language sources than you expected, but I'd appreciate your time in continuing the review. Were there ever any deadlinks? And almost everything has always been archived anyway—limitations in Wikipedia formatting permitting, and there are no further issues with link rot, and the remaining sections of the article have an abundance of English-language or number-based (chart positions/sales figures) sources, so translation isn't much of an issue from this point on. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Let me rephrase then, what I am asking you to do is to make a sweep of the references ahead (ie from critical reception onwards) to check they are working, have all the info required etc. When that's done I'll continue. And I'd hope it should be smoother sailing. Thanks. Mujinga (talk) 09:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Done. I've rephrased the translation of the Expressen review (ref #53) so that it's more basic and identifiable via Google Translate (text quoted is from the first and last paragraphs). Unfortunately, their overall album rating is no longer available at their website. Ditto the album rating of ref #52 (Dagens Nyheter). You can still see both scores at Kritiker (basically the Scandinavian Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic?). Alternatively, you can still see Dagens Nyheter's rating using the Archive URL at the end of the reference (in the first line: "BETYG: 3.") I'm confident in everything else. Thanks for your patience. Oh, and the final RoxetteBlog source is used basically as a host for the picture of the duo receiving a gold certification from the ČNS IFPI in the Czech Republic. I could switch it out for this more independent source if requested. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Homeostasis07: Brilliant! OK I'll take the article off hold now and continue with the review tomorrow or at the weekend.Mujinga (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Review

Lead

• I'll return to this last. For now I'll just note there's both 1990s and 90s in use. I would suggest using 1990s in all cases.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

• I'll also come back to this last.

Background

• Roxette released their seventh studio album, Room Service, in 2001, which was promoted by their first concert tour in six years. - the date makes the sentence read a bit strangely to my ears, i would suggest Roxette released their seventh studio album, Room Service, in 2001, and it was promoted by their first concert tour in six years.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Following the tour, on 11 September 2002, vocalist Marie Fredriksson collapsed in her bathroom; the impact of the fall fractured her cranium, and she had an epileptic seizure - since the accident happened a year later I would suggest A year later, on 11 September 2002, vocalist Marie Fredriksson collapsed in her bathroom; the impact of the fall fractured her cranium, and she had an epileptic seizure.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Another user has come along and changed this. Do you want me to change it back? Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

No it's ok like this I think, the tour and the collapse are still separated. Thanks for noticing!Mujinga (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Fredriksson was unable to speak for a considerable period of time afterward, is permanently blinded in her right eye, and is unable to read or write. - there's nothing in the source to substantiate any of that. This is quite a big claim so it needs to be sourced or removed.

The current source has Marie saying "And those years when I was unable to speak, became totally isolated. I remember when we'd sit and eat dinner, the whole family, how Micke and the kids would be chatting together. I couldn't get a single word out. It was horrible." and her autobiography's co-author saying "Because Marie can't read any more...". I've rephrased the whole sentenced, with an additional reference for what couldn't be found elsewhere. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah apologies so then there were mentions in the original citation, I missed the "can't read any more" but did see "unable to speak" and didn't relate it to the text, which was silly, I took it more metaphorically for some reason! Moving on, I think the sentence is better now but still needs some work.

Because Marie can’t read any more is a bit of a throwaway comment for me, I would rather see this referenced somewhere else (and haven't yet).permanently blinded in her right eye is also a big claim, since I can find in the citation two relevant quotes namely Hjärncancern har slagit ut synen på höger öga och kroppen skakar i ett epileptiskt anfall (googletranslate - The brain cancer has knocked out the sight of the right eye and the body shakes in an epileptic seizure) and Och typ bara 20 minuter senare började jag tappa synen på höger öga, den bara försvann liksom, jättekonstigt (googletranslate - And just 20 minutes later, I began to lose sight of the right eye, it just disappeared like that, giant art). These quotes together with a passing reference I saw elsewhere suggest to me she did go blind in her right eye, but it wasn't permanent. Am I misinterpreting? I'd just like to be very sure of the claim that she is now blind in one eye.

As a further point, I think it would be good to include quotes from these referencing articles in the footnote so that other people can verify the reference more easily. I think that's especially important in regards to the Swedish article since we can assume most readers of EN don't speak Swedish. I'm of an open mind whether the quote needs to be in Swedish or translated into English, in any case it makes it easier for readers to check.

Hmmm. Curiouser and curiouser. I've rephrased and expanded using two additional English sources, CBS and The West Australian. CBS confirms "unable to read", and The West Australian confirms "... left her blind in one eye and with limited hearing and mobility". Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks the extra references make it easily verifiable now. Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• She also curated several exhibitions of her artwork in Stockholm and Gothenburg,[16][17] - i would take out the word several as it seems we are talking about just two exhibitions one in each city. Stockholm is adequately referenced by ref 16, but Gothenburg is not mentioned in ref 17 and thus a better ref is required.

Sorry about the confusion with this ref. One of my last projects was re-writing Marie Fredriksson, but it seems I mistakenly transcribed the wrong source to expand Charm School. I've replaced this with the proper one. Note that the new source reads "Göteborg" (Swedish spelling) and not "Gothenborg" (English spelling of the same city) ("Utställningen i Göteborg blir hennes tredje och den första separata utanför huvudstaden.") Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Great that works! As an aside, I like the city of Göteborg.

Recording and production

• "re-create the classic [Roxette] sound, without being too nostalgic. There are certain interesting things happening when Marie and I start to sing together. We love that. But we didn't want to repeat ourselves too much." - this quote is not quite as it should be. In the source it reads "With this album we've tried to re-create the classic Rox sound without being too nostalgic. There are certain interesting things happening when Marie and I start to sing together. We love that. But we don't want to repeat ourselves too much" so it would be good to change it to that. 'Rox' could be changed to 'Rox[ette].'

Changed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• "I wrote it with the intention of Marie singing it, but when she did [start singing the lyric] I thought, 'Wow! This is spot on!'. Marie was really telling the story of her life, and that was all done subconsciously. I hadn't thought of that. [She] really made that song [her] own."[23] - I would like to be able to check whether this quote is 100% verbatim since it sounds strange to me. Can you supply a source? The EPK appears to be an 8 minute video in Swedish with English subtitles. Unfortunately this link leads nowhere, this link is for a video "blocked in my country" and I couldn't find it elsewhere.

Another victim of the year-long delay; I can't find it on YouTube anymore either. Removed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• Since the demos were recorded at T&A and this is mentioned as the third studio in the infobox, T&A should either be mentioned here or in the following section.

I'll try and find a source for this tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Great I see the ref Mujinga (talk) 10:12, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Release and promotion

• Perhaps here at the beginning of the section is a good place to add a sample, since there is a 30-second sample of "She's Got Nothing On (But the Radio)" on the track's page.

There may be a copyright issue doing this. I'd need to amend the FUR to add the sample to another page. Sorry, but I can't make head nor tail of that now-ancient FUR. It doesn't even appear to be properly licensed for use on "She's Got Nothing On (But the Radio)", let alone Charm School. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

ok thanks for checking Mujinga (talk) 10:13, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Would be good to add that "She's Got Nothing On (But the Radio)" was released in January 2011.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• It peaked at number nine in Austria, making it their highest-peaking single there since 1994's "Sleeping in My Car" - the citation doesn't back this up, since it gives stats for the album only.

Please scroll down to below the track listings: the "Singles - Austria Top 40" section gives their entire chart history in the country. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Great, verified, thanks! Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• The song reached number nineteen in Switzerland—their highest-peaking single in that country since "Wish I Could Fly" in 1999 - the citation doesn't back this up, since it gives stats for the album only. This is basically the sort of stuff I would have hoped a careful reference check before upgrading to B class would catch.

Ditto the above. Alt+F (or browser equivalent) "Singles - Schweizer Hitparade".

Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

As above Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• in the United States on 26 July - I don't see the date in the reference.

Changed "on 26 July"→"in July", which the source does confirm. Also added additional ref for the exact date in the box in 'Release history'. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

great, verified Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• peaking instead on numerous airplay charts.[36][37][38] - this part of the sentence is maybe best cut out. The first ref is to Finland, not entirely sure what it means. The next two refs are for each track in Russia, but the "Peak Position On Top Radio Hits" is not impressive: 168 and 197 respectively.

The first ref is for Suomen virallinen radiosoittolista ("the Official Finnish Airplay Chart"), courtesy of The Official Finnish Charts. And the positions from Tophit (Russia's official airplay chart) may not be particularly impressive, but they've received a substantial amount of airplay in the country (Speak to Me played over 40,000 times; Way Out over 10,000). Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

OK so then maybe better to say receiving substantial airplay in Finland and Russia - that would work for me, my main problem was with the word numerous since then that led me to expect a reference for widespread airplay all over Europe/world. Mujinga (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

• Vinyl editions of the album contain a longer version of "No One Makes It on Her Own" - the citation doesn't back this up, we need something talking about a longer version on the vinyl.

Removed this portion of the sentence, but added a different ref to back up everything else. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• This edition included a bonus disc containing demo recordings of every song on the original album, plus remixes of "Speak to Me" and "She's Got Nothing On (But the Radio)" by Bassflow, Adrian Lux and Adam Rickfors - citation is dead.

Blame the AllMusic PureURL formatting, because the page still exists. But I've replaced it with another one anyway. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "the same straight and easily accessible pop that made them famous all over the world. With the difference now that it is a little less compelling." - i can't get the citation to work for this can you?

The bot didn't identify this as a dead URL. Typing "Roxette Charm School" into "Sök" came back with a new link, which I've replaced. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Often I found myself thinking about how there is too much pop music, to ever be able to find a single reason for this album's existence." - again, i can't verify this.

Because the copyright holder has put the quoted text behind a WP:PAYWALL. There's nothing wrong with using such sources. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• "Impressive" where does this come from? this paragraph? Ur det perspektivet är jag positivt överraskad av ”Charm school”. Min främsta invändning mot Roxettes skivor har brukat vara att de har låtit så krampaktiga, så nervöst fullspäckade med fiffigheter. Här finns ganska lite av den sortens klåfingrighet, snarare än nervositet inför den stora återkomsten andas albumet ett förvånansvärt lugn. I synnerhet de känsliga Marie Fredriksson-balladerna, som är åtminstone fyra och imponerande nedtonade allihop. Then perhaps pleasantly surprised would be better? Further, there's not much I can find in the MOS about this, but following WP:NONENG I think it would be helpful to put the quoted text in the footnote, here and generally.

It's the very first word in the review: "imponerande". Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• "expertly" - I am not seeing where that came from in the citation.

I really don't think you were given good advice when told to use Google Translate software to do GA reviews. The Babelfish/Oxford University Press/Folkets Lexikon collab. is much more reliable. Although in the case of "imponerande", I see that even Google translates that word as "impressive". In this case, "expertly" has been derived from the sentences: "Charm School utgår i första hand inte från Roxettes tidiga powerpop modell The Look, utan snarare från gruppens mindre uppmärksammade men musikaliskt mer äventyrliga mittperiod. Samt med drag av Per Gessles romantiska psykedelia på soloprojektet Son of a plumber som kom för några år sedan." Which, of course, Google has fundamentally mistranslated, to the point that they've altered the meaning of the first sentence to almost the exact opposite of what the author actually says. Properly translated, the English equivalent should read: "Charm School proceeds to emanate with expertise Roxette's early power pop model 'The Look', and also their less popular but musically more adventurous mid-term. And also too [it] draw[s] from Per Gessle's romantic psychedelia on [his] solo project, Son of a Plumber, which came [out] some years earlier." Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

• A writer for Nöjesguiden also complimented Fredriksson's voice, highlighting "I'm Glad You Called" as one of her best ever performances, but was critical of Gessle's singing. They said the album would have been better if Fredriksson sang lead vocals on every song. - well what i get in machine translation for the complete review is It would be fun to see Per Gessle as a brilliant pop artist. Unfortunately, the truth looks different. Because more things are needed than well-thought-out melodies to make a pop song good - and you can't ignore Roxette's horribly dated production and sound, the miserable lyrics or Gessle's horrible song voice (why can't Marie Fredriksson sing the rub?). But here's a good song: the quietly saddened I'm Happy You Called . So I don't think that really tallies well with the wikipedia article. This is the fifth citation in a row I've had problems with. You mentioned somewhere above about the foreign language refs slowing things down, I actually don't mind checking them, I even enjoy it, but then they do have to be both easily verifiable and fitting. That isn't happening unfortunately and putting the article on hold hasn't helped, so I'm going to fail the GAN. Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

@Mujinga: Once again, that's completely mistranslated. I note this is only your second review, so I'm more than prepared to excuse some of the errors you've made during this process. It's been pointed out to you elsewhere by another user that you misused the "hold" function here and – quite frankly – some of your "review" points were either silly mistakes on your part (not accessing URLs properly; not clicking the adequate tab; not realising that an article that's been waiting for 13 months is probably gonna be the victim of WP:LINKROT), or just plain bizarre (i.e., your point about this needing to be B-class prior to GA promotion). After waiting 13 months, this is not the quality of review I was expecting. I kindly suggest that before you engage in reviewing any further nominations, you take the time required to first study the criteria, instructions, as well as the more general editing practises of what's required of nominations (one pressing example: WP:PAYWALL). I'd suggest the latter could most properly be done by studying previous GA reviews. I'm sure Ritchie333 would be able to help you with that. Anyway, thanks for your time. Also, you didn't close this review correctly. Please do so, so that I may renominate the article. Homeostasis07 (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

References

• Note 1 - this is a great quote, do you have the book to verify it is correct?

Yes. You can additionally see the quote here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• 3 now goes to a different link (https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/a/ka6oyB/marie-har-en-hjarntumor) and can be updated
• 4 now goes to a different link (https://www.aftonbladet.se/nojesbladet/a/WLRw0j/cancern-slog-ut-synen) and can be updated

Fixed these two. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• 11 - neither the archived version or the original version give anything. Since the ref is simply for the making of A Collection of Roxette Hits: Their 20 Greatest Songs! I am sure a ref from that page can be found.

Either you've made a mistake or my subsequent edits to the article screwed something up. The ref for A Collection of Roxette Hits: Their 20 Greatest Songs! works fine for me. Maybe you meant the Filter ref? It was a link to a Dec 2008/Jan 2009 issue of a magazine which contained an extensive feature on Gessle; the actual feature/multi-page article is copyrighted material, and hasn't been (legally) reprinted online, so is not viewable via the link. It was merely a link to purchase the magazine (like I did, back when it was originally released). I've supplemented this with an additional online ref, though. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• 17 - doesn't give the required citation for an exhibition in Gothenburg
• 23 - would be good to have a link to click
• 27 - doesn't back up claim
• 28 - doesn't back up claim

They do, per above. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• 39 - doesn't back up claim

Removed, per above. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

• 41 dead link

Removed, per above. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:16, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Images

• All three images are fine

Final Comment

I can see this article passing when renominated, but first it really needs some work on the verifiability of the citations. I've made some more detailed comments above, I hope it passes next time! Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

[removed]

@Mujinga: can you please complete the above checklist so that the next reviewer knows what needs doing when I renominate the article. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:35, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

• Kay @Mujinga: please feel free to complete your review whenever you feel like, but I'll be renominating the article soon, so it'd be nice if the next reviewer knows exactly what needs doing during the next review. But that's your prerogative at this point. Plus, considering this article will probably be waiting until July 2020 for its next review, I see no rush. Once again, thank you so much for your review. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

was the empty checklist blocking closure? then i've removed it. good luck with the next nomination, if the problems i've noted above are fixed i imagine it will pass.Mujinga (talk) 10:32, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The idea was for you to complete the checklist so that the next reviewer would be able to immediately see what needed doing. Good luck to you with your next GA review. Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 01:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)