Jump to content

Talk:Don't Wake Me Up (album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Troubled.elias (talk · contribs) 04:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'll take up this review. I am about to eat lunch (12:50 p.m. my local time), so I will leave opening comments in a few hours ‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ ‍ 💬reach out to me
📝see my work 04:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking up this review! In case you need them, there are 2 offline sources in this article that are available online: Media notes (ref 1) and Love Rock Revolution (ref 2; free to borrow on Open Library). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 03:48, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Round 1

Okay @PerfectSoundWhatever as I promised, I'll do the opening comments today ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "O Goldwing'd messenger..."
📝 "...of mighty gods." 18:24, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Article history is stable, that's good
  • There are two images - one is the non-free cover art, which is appropriately tagged with a FUR, and the other is a photo of a recording studio licensed under CC-BY 2.0. Uses are appropriate
  • References look reliable for GA
  • This touches all the essential aspects of the album that I expect an album article to discuss - background, music and lyrics, and critical reception. Sufficiently satisfies the "broad in its coverage" criteria
  • No glaring copyright violations detected according to Earwig. Plagiarism is not really an issue. However, quotes are abound; some of them are used well and properly attributed, but others may need tweaking.
  • Not sure why the one footnote (the vendor listing one) is necessary. Also, try to keep external links out of the "Notes" section because these should be in an External links section - would suggest delinking that part if you don't intend to remove the footnote entirely
  • The catalog number detail might be too much for a lead. To be honest I don't even know if it's necessary to include in the article at all - none of the album articles I know do this. Release date and labels are enough
  • I maintain that "Legacy" can be merged into the "critical reception" section. I feel like having an entire section named "legacy" might give viewers who first see the table of contents the impression that the album had a large impact on society and music industry as a whole - which is what these sections usually set out to discuss - even though this isn't really the case. See also WP:DUE
    •  Not done, there are 2 main ideas in the "Legacy" section: the label set a new precedent for K Records since he created something innovative despite his low-fidelity equipment which others in the label were using, and that he gained a small following after the album. Neither were said by music critics—a music critic is used to support the second point but it originates from the book—and neither are criticisms or analyzations of the album. I see no reason why that prose would belong in the critical reception section. Yes, it's a small legacy, but readers can asses that for themselves by reading the section or the lead. I'm open to renaming the section, but the prose doesn't belong in any other section of the article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 21:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Alright then, consider myself satisfied with this concern
Round 2

@PerfectSoundWhatever, I'll be taking a look at the prose and see which parts need editing for clarity, if there are any ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 17:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "release of the debut album by D+" this is clunky. Is this supposed to mean "with the release of D+'s debut album"?
  • " Phil Elverum became associated with K Records with the release of ... which was released on K Records" I am sure it is possible to reword everything in here without the repetition. Also you're missing a period
  • Who is Calvin Johnson supposed to be? An introductory phrase before the first mention of his name would be nice
  • You introduce Johnson and Elverum with the full name twice
    •  Question: I was under the impression that you put their full name for the first time it appears in each paragraph, because you don't assume each reader reads every paragraph in order. I don't know if there's any precedent on this, couldn't find anything in the MOS. Do you know of anything?
      • MOS:SURNAME says After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. I interpret the "initial mention" to apply to the whole prose. Though of course, MOS:SURNAME is not listed as something GAs should fulfil, so I'll instead approach this from the perspective of conciseness: each section isn't that long, so we can reasonably assume that readers can just scroll up if they read the article midway and are confused as to what surnames refer to which person. Hence, to cut the word count for conciseness, you can remove any subsequent mention of the first names
  • "where he experimented" with what? Experimented with how to do production, for example?
  • "Elverum adopted the name, the Microphones," this could use a little more context. Did the Microphones used to refer only to Elverum before the band expanded, did he adopt the name for a group of people with whom he was associated?
    •  Done. Afaik, the Microphones didn't really function as a "band". Elverum usually wrote and produced most of the stuff, and the other members usually did extra vocals or instrumentation. I'm pretty sure the initial cassette releases were just him, with other people as guests but not "band members," so I just added "First as a solo project". — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is somewhat nitpicky (nitpicks? in a GA review? gasp) but the sentence structure of "First as a solo project, Elverum adopted the name, the Microphones," makes it unclear what the solo project is. Is it Elverum? Is it the band? The answer is obvious, of course - I would rewrite this to "Elverum started the band the Microphones as a solo project"
  • "The studios in which ... was recorded in" last 'in' is redundant
  • "which also lacked high-fidelity equipment during recording ... The studios in which Don't Wake Me Up was recorded in lacked high-fidelity recording equipment." These are in two separate sections. I feel as though both sentences just say the same thing - can one of these go?
  • The quotes about the studio might belong better in the first paragraph, just after the article describes the recording location for the album. Similarly, everything in the first paragraph from "The album was primarily written and composed by the band's frontman ..." might be better for the second paragraph? Since this deals with his experiences while recording the album, which fits well with the sentences about his being away from home or his nightowl proclivities
    • Sorta  Done, except I didn't follow your suggestions. Instead I made "Background" to only cover events before the album's recording, and "Recording" to cover the studios and events during recording. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 22:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will comment on the "Music and lyrics", "Legacy", and "Critical reception" sections at a later time
Round 3

@PerfectSoundWhatever ping. Finished work on another wikipedia project, so I can finally return to reviewing this

  • The critical reception section is pretty balanced and represents all the relevant POVs
  • I'm not sure if the cited sources support calling this album lo-fi rock - Allmusic does not explicitly state that DWMU is that genre ("moves between gritty lo-fi rock and droning, spacy ..."), and Pitchfork describes the track "Ocean" as lo-fi rock, not the album.
    •  Not done for now. Hmm, I see your point, but I don't think I agree. I removed the Pitchfork cite, it definitely doesn't verify the genre, good catch. The Allmusic statement is as follows: Don't Wake Me Up moves between gritty lo-fi rock and droning, spacy constructions. I don't interpret this as DWMU has elements of "lo-fi rock" and "droning, spacy constructions", rather, that the album is comprised of those two. Because it's "moved between", to me it implies there are two things that it oscillates between sounding like, but it is never not one of those 2 things. Wikipedia:Genre warrior is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The only policy that WP:EXPLICITGENRE links to is WP:SYNTH, which is completely unrelated. Synthesis is the combination of multiple sources, we're talking about the interoperation of a single one. Thoughts? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is a confusing choice then. From this quote, you put drone (i.e. "droning, spacy constructions") as a stylistic element of the album, but "lo-fi rock" is a solid genre label to use? Plus "moves between" implies only a couple tracks are lo-fi rock and the others give more droney vibes. Hence you listen to one song and it feels lo-fi rock, then you move onto the next tracks and it's droney, then another track and boom more lo-fi rock.
        And yes, we're not dealing with multiple sources here, but the essay also cites OR in general as a reason why genre attributions must be explicit. Absence of OR is a GA criteria, and just because a page is an essay does not preclude its points from being valid :shrug: ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
        📝 "Don't get complacent..."         04:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, "droning, spacy constructions" isn't explicitly a genre, but "lo-fi rock" is, which is why I used them as such. I understand your dislike of the inconsistency between using lo-fi rock as a genre but not droning, so I will remove "drone" as a stylistic element. You say that "'moves between'" implies only a couple tracks are lo-fi rock and the others give more droney vibes", but how? The statement is essentially: "the album moves between X and Y". To me this implies a rough 50-50 split, since how else do you interpret it. You say a the source signifies a "couple" (a small number) of the tracks are lo-fi rock, how are you coming to that conclusion when the quote gives equal weight to both? I dislike squabbling and splitting hairs over minor things, so if you still disagree, ask for a third opinion please. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The comma after "Florida Beach" isn't necessary, I feel. Also since the article for Mellotron treats it as a proper noun, you should probably capitalize the first letter
  • "which Scheiber describes ... which transitions into" repetitive. Might I suggest "...which Scheiber describes as 'relaxed' and 'sighing'. The track transitions into 'Where It's Hotter (Part 3)'." with the wikilink?
  • Wikilink "textures" to Texture (music) for unfamiliar readers
  • "Both of the preceding tracks" simplify to "Both tracks"? I think readers can easily tell what "both tracks" is referring to.
  • Legacy section looks fine prose-wise
  • "Abebe writes" this should be in past tense
  • Is it really necessary to spell out the genre classification of the album in the critical reception? You already did this in the composition section.
  • "In AsleepInTheBack of Sputnikmusic's 2017 review" -> "In AsleepInTheBack's 2017 review for Sputnikmusic"
  • Track listing, personnel, and release history sections look alright

After these comments are resolved I'll move on to spotchecks ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 10:08, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Round 4

This batch of comments serves mostly to analyze the sources and spot OR or V issues, if there are any. There are some prose suggestions there as well. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..." 09:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1

a/b - verified

c - verified

d - good

Ref 2

a - good

b/c - Good. But I'd say the correct page to cite for the band lineup is p. 228 - this quote "When Bret became more serious about D+, Denise [left] and Bret invited Phil [...] and Karl Blau" can be found on that page and supports the statement better. Additionally, this is more of a prose thing, but I would put more clarity on the fact that Elverum just joined D+ shortly before the debut album's release. "Phil Elverum joined the band D+—then comprised of himself, Karl Blau, and Bret Lunsford[2]:228—and with K Records upon their releasing of the band's debut album.[2]:229"

d - Mostly good. Did Johnson directly join D+ during the tour performances? If not, we can reword to "After D+ embarked on a cross-country tour"

  • Apologies, but you forgot to reply to this

e - Good

f - Somewhat okay. Also, again, more prose-wise, but "began the musical project ... initially as a solo project" is repetitive and I would reword. "started the band the Microphones as a solo project" perhaps?

g - Okay

h - Verified. Just to make sure, do we know what studio Johnson was referring to? Because the album was recorded in two studios

  • I'm quite sure it was Dub Narcotic, but don't know if the book explicitly says that somewhere (I think you'd have to synthesize different sections of the book since Johnson doesn't state which studio at the quote.). Besides, reader doesn't really need that information badly, and don't want to add OR by adding that. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i/j - Okay, but reword "due to Elverum's high-quality production" per MOS:WORDSTOWATCH. This makes it sound like we're praising the album production in Wikipedia's voice

  •  On hold. I struggled with that wording. Do you have a better idea on how to express the statement? I don't know how else to say that the production was of high-quality as in the perceived amount of good it is, but not high-fidelity as in audio quality, while still not adding any WP:OR. The book material the statement paraphrases runs from "The record set a new pre..." to "...accepted despite it". — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

k - Great

Ref 3

a - Remove studio from the quote to avoid repetition. Again, do we know what studio here is being referred to?

b - Great, though I'm not sure Elverum wrote/transcribed his interview answers

c/d/e - Verified

Refs 4 and 5

[4] - Good; opinion is clearly attributed to author

[5a] - Still reticent about this lo-fi rock categorization per above. If a better source can be found for this then this can stay

[5b] - Verified

[5c] - Quote is clearly attributed to author; verified.

[5d] - Verified

[5e]/[5f] - Verified, opinion is clearly attributed to author

Ref 6

a/b/c - Verified

d - Great! Though note the repetition with "mix ... mixing"

  •  Not done, changing words just because they repeat usually is just a detriment to clarify and conciseness, see WP:ELEVAR for the argument.
    • ... no? I fail to see how this applies? ELEVAR is for things like "Elverum recorded songs for his project... The Anacortes native released Tests on so-and-so date" where, if readers read two sentences together without context, they'd struggle to piece together that, for example, Elverum and "the Anacortes native" refer to the same person. "It can confuse readers who are unaware, for example, that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome." Plus, I was not suggesting to change words anyway. I would have preferred removing "describing it as a mixture" because it just repeats the earlier phrase "called the mix of genres". Per the essay you cite, "the real cause of repetitive prose [...] is usually repeated information"
      • @Your Power: Elegant variation is the use of "one word for another for the sake of variety", which includes substituting proper nouns like Elevrum/The Anacortes native, but also normal words too: see the first example on WP:ELEVAR that uses fire/blaze. My impression is that you had a problem with the use of "mix" and "mixing" since they're the same word. If this is not what you intended, be more explicit. I like when GA reviews give changes in a format of "Change 'X' to 'Y'" due to its clarity. Communicate your changes properly so you don't confused/annoyed when I don't understand. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @PerfectSoundWhatever: yes, your impression would be correct. And I believe I did make a suggestion in the format in question - I suggested to remove "describing it as a mixture" from the sentence.
          • trout Self-trout Sorry, don't know how I missed that you listed the change. I'm fine with that change, now  Done.

e - Good. Wikilink vocal harmony and bass for unfamiliar readers - be careful with wikilinking bass as it can refer to lots of things in music

f - Verified

g - Good. Would replace "snippet" with "sample" to prevent close paraphrasing at the very least. Plus enclose the song title in quotes

h/i - Good

j/k - Verified, opinions are properly attributed

Ref 7

a/b/c - Good, but reword "Sputnikmusic wrote" to the actual author name

d - Verified

e - Ditto with a/b/c. You can enclose the adjectives used in quotes because the source uses those exact words

f/g - Verified.

h/i - Verified, but the statements cited are just restating the analysis of the lyrics in the composition section. I find the last 5 sentences in that review pretty insightful commentary for the album. If you can replace the aforementioned statements with a paraphrased version of the last 5 sentences, that will be amazing

Refs 8, 9, and 10

[8] - verified. Opinion properly attributed

[9] - good. Though can we clarify through a footnote that the 2013 date refers to a reissue?

[10] - verified

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Don%27t_Wake_Me_Up_(album)/GA1&oldid=1102938767"