Talk:Drukqs/GA1
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
Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 14:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: TappyTurtle (talk · contribs) 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Hello! I plan to be reviewing this article soon, tomorrow or so (EDT). As part of the current GAN backlog drive, I will have an experienced reviewer check my review. TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 05:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | James has stated that the title is not related to drugs, and is "just a word [he] made up...I never wanted to big up any drugs, because I don't reckon they deserve it." - This read a bit confusingly to me - one part of the quote is used in third-person ("just a word [he] made up") and then the other read in first-person ("I never wanted to big up any drugs, because I don't reckon they deserve it"). Otherwise, the prose is sufficiently clear and well-written.
Addressed. |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Lead sufficiently summarizes the body, layout is proper, and no weasel-y language. Optionally:
|
| 2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | Reflist is present |
|
|
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Checked all sources (except for 5, 18, 21, inaccessible), only issues were:
Cited liner notes for Personnel section. |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | No OR violations found |
|
|
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio detector raises no major issues (highest similarity is 33.3% from Keymag (ref 9)) |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | There's not much information about the album's release other than an imprecise release date in the lead, the label, and the fact that it's a double album; Exactly when in October 2001 was it released? In what format? How was it promoted? How did it sell? What's the story of the album artwork? Compare to other Aphex Twin albums.
I was unable to find any promotional material for the album. Found nothing for the album artwork either. Only things I could find were the original format it was released in and the release date itself. |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Looks good, article is well-focused |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Written fairly, including the reception section |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No outstanding disputes here |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images have copyright tags, and non-free images (the only particular one here being the album cover) are tagged appropriately |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | I'm not sure if File:Aphex Twin, 2008.jpg is really useful as it's a generic photo that doesn't demonstrate much other than what James looks like on-set, but it's relevant enough so I don't think it impacts this review |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | I will put this on hold for 7 days from now; some info is missing and other minor issues are present but other than that, it's looking good; nice work so far! TappyTurtle [talk | contribs] 07:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@TappyTurtle: I have finished addressing your comments. lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC) |
Secondary reviewer checks
[edit]This is the last review remaining in the backlog drive - happy to check your work @TappyTurtle since this looks to be a straightforward review; your thoughts have been clearly conveyed. 1a. Accurate to the current state of the article. I couldn't suggest anything that isn't personal preference (e.g., use of serial commas). 1b. Layout conforms to similar genre articles. References in the lead is a matter of making it easier to confirm "challengeable" statements that appear later on per WP:LEADCITE, which I believe is being done here. If Aphex Twin doesn't provide a pronunciation of the album title I don't see how it could be included. 2b. I concur with the judgments made on references. 3a. Many of the points you raised have been addressed, other than "how it was promoted" and "what is the story of the artwork". That is a little concerning, but if sources aren't accessible, I don't know what to do there. This is a case of a subject just not having as much retrospective or contemporary sourcing to provide material, which is kind of expected an Aphex Twin album that got mixed reception and didn't sell a ton. 3b-6a. Confirmed your assessment here. 6b. Having a photo of the artist (or a collaborator, or someone who inspired some part of an album) seems to be a common thing in this genre of article. For example, Mata (album). I see no harm in using this photo, especially since it's not restricted by Fair Use. 7. Good assessment. I will put this page on my watchlist, but leave it up to the nominator and reviewer to determine if the article meets the broadness requirement given the available information. Reconrabbit 16:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reconrabbit, thanks for your feedback (and sorry for the little delay)!! For 3a, considering the lack of reliable coverage online I think it's fair to mark it off as it is (this album was definitely one of the (slightly) more obscure, critically-flopping Aphex Twin releases, aside from Avril 14th gaining some renewed popularity in popular culture). If we try to shoot for an FA then there's definitely more source-scraping to be attempted but, as it stands, I think it's just broad enough to pass – nice work LunaEclipse!