Talk:Cross (Justice album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Maplestrip (talk · contribs) 09:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

† is one of my favorite albums of all time, so it will be an honour to review this article. I might be a bit slow in my process, and apologies for any delays in advance. At first glance, the article looks very good, if a bit short. I'm excited to dive in. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, it looks like the article still needs much more work than I had hoped. I think a lot more text needs to be added, and it would not yet be helpful for me to analyze the existing prose in much depth. Officially I'll put this nomination on hold. I hope my comments so far have been helpful, I'm sorry this might be a rougher experience than hoped; it's a shame none of this came through in the peer review. I'd be happy to brainstorm of course. If the issues are overwhelming, we can also halt this GAN completely of course.

I'm afraid I'm going to fail this nomination, as I am simply not expecting the kind of expansion I am looking for for this article. I believe there are a lot of sources completely under-utilized and that this would be a larger project than expected. I appreciate all the work you have put into it so far, as the article is indeed much nicer now than it was. I hope this will not dissuade you from expanding this article further, but for now it does not meet GA criterium 3a. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Prose looks fine b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Correct usage of layout, word choice, and lists. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Release information (particularly its many labels) is a bit unclear, but otherwise everything is cited. b (citations to reliable sources): All sources are appropriate in reliability and use. The references list consists of significant publications and chart listings. c (OR): No original research It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Currently, the article does not describe critical reception in any detail. It does not describe what work followed directly from this album. b (focused): Focused entirely on the album. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Little negative reception described. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: No problems It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Thorough and correct fair-use description. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Alt-text missing for duo picture, but otherwise all good.
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Issues that should be solved for GA

The first thing I notice is that the lede section describes the release history of the album, from iTunes to Ed Banger Records, Because Music, and Vice Records. Database listings/primary sources can confirm most of this, and I think you should cite them. Despite there being no secondary sources on this, I think a "Release section" that describes this would be appropriate, if only because I don't think the list of labels is the most important first thing readers should read about this production. Our sources don't think it is. (Typically, promotion and release are more closely tied, than promotion and development art. Maybe a restructuring would work) Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I still really think it would be better to split the first section into something along the lines of 'Background/composition' and 'Release/promotion.' ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Cross the Universe (both album and film) should be described in a section in this article. This is the Cross tour and Cross live album, and to me seem to be the direct continuation of the album. (potential sources: [1], [2], [3])
This source seems like an absolute must for this article: Vice.com "Ten Years Later"
- I'm unsure if this is acceptable, as there is no consenus on Vice and its sister publications' reliablity. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh wow, I was unfamiliar with these issues. Looking through the past two discussions on Vice, it seems the issue lies primarily with political writing rather than cultural writing. There are concerns about it being more media company than publication. I do think it's still an appropriate inclusion for this article, but seeing as it's also largely a personal account it's probably not that helpful anyway. The second-to-last paragraph in this source might contain something useful for this article as it describes the album's lasting legacy, but use it as you see fit. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm just realizing that Vice Media is also one of the publishers of †, so this might make any Vice-owned publication a primary source? Maybe best to steer clear after all, but I'm not sure. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:56, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source should also be included in a legacy/continuation section: DJMag 15th anniversary. (Also mentions Ed Banger Records) Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The review box lists ten short-form reviews of the album, but none of these are quoted in prose. The reception section is entirely limited to a Metacritic rating, a single word from Pitchfork, a one-sentence review by a named critic, a sentence by a later EDM artist, and a whole bunch of listings. I really need to see some more detailed critical reception here. Which songs were considered highlights or duds? What is the range of the sounds in the album? Personally I'd like to see how the album compared to contemporary work. Right now we just have the word "hash" and that the album was "compared to Kraftwerk."
I cannot confirm the "credited samples" paragraph cited to Remix. This might be because not the whole interview is available. Can you confirm that this information is actually in there? This does look like an amazing source. It mentions an "internet leak" that I can't find about anywhere else; do you happen to know anything about it? Not done I don't have the full interview with me, nor do I know the issue it appeared in. I don't know anything about the leak either, sorry. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some single releases ("DVNO", "Phantom Pt. II"(?), and "The Party") are only said be released as such in the lede, but not in the text of the article. Must also be cited of course. Partly done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 14:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AllMusic citation in the navbox seems to suggest that most of the labels released the album in August, not June. Am I missing something?

Miscellaneous comments

The Robert Christgau "review" portion should be rewritten. I would shorten it to: MSN Music critic Robert Christgau gave the album a rating indicating a "likable effort consumers attuned to its overriding aesthetic or individual vision may well enjoy," describing it as "much trickier, sillier and more kinetic than Kraftwerk." Personally, I would put both webcitations at the end of the final sentence, to keep things a little more clean-looking and to group the two citations. Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots of pictures available on Commons regarding Justice and its famous cross-icon/logo. The lede image on Justice (band) shows the members in 2007. One of these images might be nice for this article, but wholly optional. Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 12:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you should add a citation to the track listing to satisfy GA requirements, though I see many album GAs don't bother and those that do use the primary source of the album (CD) itself. I don't mind either way. Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 11:57, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I hope you'll expand our coverage of the Pitchfork review a lot, as there's a ton of detail there, but regardless, you should put "harsh" in quotations. Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 11:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the "Issues" section above, I asked for a significant expansion of the Reception section. One related option is to create yet another new section titled "Musical style" that describes the musical things the album does outside of the context of reception. This is not necessarily "better" than describing the musical style fully in the Reception section, but if this appeals to you it would give a good structure to the article. For example, (from the Pitchfork review in this case), you could put the fact that some songs "squeeze" all sound into a mid-range frequency band and/or that the album has relatively little bass, into a "Musical style" section or in the "Reception" section. Whatever would work for you. (These examples are not necessarily the most important facts to include about the album, but they might be. If you want I can dig through all the reviews more to get a better idea of critical consensus). ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]