Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Daniel Case (talk · contribs) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC) Since this article has been sitting in the GAN queue for 10 months, and I owe one after getting The Exorcist to GA, and I usually try to pick the one that's been waiting the longest to be reviewed, I am choosing this one.[reply]

I will be printing out a hard copy to review, then doing a copy edit based on that (no GA nominator, IMO, should have their article failed over easily fixable copy issues), and then coming back with what I think. I hope, as usual, to have some results on this within a week (you've waited far too long). Daniel Case (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Aha, I see you had the same issue I did with The Exorcist ... an earlier review being abandoned. I will take into account that review as well, but not till after I'm done with my hard-copy review. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review

OK. I'm done with my copyedit, which I can favorably report took about 300 bytes off the article, which tells me there wasn't much fat in it (a bit wordy at some points, but I've seen a lot worse)—a good sign.

I always start these off by saying what I liked about the article, and for this one the answer is, what's not to like? It definitely seems to have benefited from the previous review process. It told me some things I didn't know that I found interesting (I have it mind to check this music out online when I can find the time) and didn't bore me even though I knew very little about the artist or this subgenre of electronic music.

From the previous review I completely defer to the redoubtable and respectable RoySmith on the sourcing question about the Reddit AMAs. That eliminates a big issue. So for promotion I only have two relatively minor notes for the nominator to address:

The {{fact}} on endnote a. I don't think it should be too hard to add some of the many "later sources" in the article to this one just to support the later use of Lopatin's spelling.

"It was eventually removed, likely because of copyright." It took me a while to be able to check the cited source, and indeed it says that, but it uses the language "presumably because of copyright". First, that's a little less committal than "likely", to the point that I'd consider the latter term to be slightly OR-ish and prefer the former in our article.
But more importantly, the totally speculative nature of this claim even in the source gives me pause. The writer of the source does not strike me as being in a position to know, or credibly speculate, as to the reason for the removal. And there's the AMAs and the other interviews with Lopatin ... has he himself ever been asked the reason for the removal? If he has been let's put it in; as long as we don't know, I'd prefer we not speculate about why in our voice even if it's sourced. It's not really a matter of great relevance to the subject of the article.

OK, that's it. You have the usual week to address these.

One other thing not essential for promotion, but which I'm still curious about: What's the explanation for calling them "Eccojams"? It seems like it has to do with the cover art, but in the absence of an actual statement to that effect it's OR for us to say so. If Lopatin hasn't said so, we should keep an ear out for that if he does.

Lastly, if this gets promoted I see some possibilities for a DYK nomination. Would you be OK with that?

~~On hold~~ Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case: Thanks, I have addressed your notes. Lazman321 (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass And so it passes Daniel Case (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]