Jump to content

Talk:Making a New World

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMaking a New World has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 8, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Making a New World, a concept album by Field Music about the after-effects of World War I, originated from a commission by the Imperial War Museum?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self-nominated at 03:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral: Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - There are a lot of quotes that bring up false positives on copyvios. But there are also some true matches which aren't in quotes:
    • first true concept album. Its songs grew from a project Field Music undertook for the Imperial War Museum
    • utilised transducers to capture the vibrations, then displayed on a graph showing the distances between peaks on different lines to pinpoint the location of enemy armament
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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
This review is transcluded from Talk:Making a New World/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This is quite a long article, so it may take a while for me to review. However, I will work hard on it and the first suggestion is to add a personnel section for easily going above start class, remember there is more than composing and writing to be mentioned within the article. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Kyle Peake for taking on the review! I just added a Personnel section consistent with those in the other Field Music album GAs; sorry I initially forgot that with this one. Looking forward to your feedback on the article! — Hunter Kahn 17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

[edit]
  • The citations are not needed here as that is sourced in the body
  • I can see that the album was initially recorded in 2019, can you find a source to verify if it ended then or 2020? Add this within a sentence in the body, then add recording year(s here
  • I know there's various genres cited in the body; list pop and rock here since most are sub genres of them that are sourced
  • The lead does not comply with WP:LEAD, as it is five paragraphs long. Try thinking about what it is notable for the lead before trimming it, take the sentence: ""A Change of Heir" was inspired by Harold Gillies, a surgeon who pioneered skin grafts and later conducted one of the first gender realignment operations." for example; this is hardly notable here
  • "by the English rock band" → "by English rock band" and mention the members directly afterwards, while wikilinking David
    • I've added the wikilink, but are you sure mentioning the band members is necessary? I don't usually see this kind of thing in articles about albums (for example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an FA, but the lead doesn't list off John, Paul, George and Ringo as band members). It would also add length to an already fairly lengthy lead, and it would also be a little more complicated than with a normal band, because you could argue that David and Peter Brewis are the only true band members, whereas the other three are more like touring/associate members, and if we were to list all five we'd have to explain that context and add even more length to the lead. My preference would be to just keep it as is, and the fact that the band article is wikilinked means the reader can always click on it to get more information about the members anyway... — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure the information about the meaning of the album after the release sentence should not be switched to the next para instead? It just seems like the recording information belongs earlier in the lead than this to me... I am not referencing the museum information here.
    • I personally like it in the first paragraph because I think it's perhaps the most crucial single statement of the whole album, so it feels appropriate for the very top. Moving it to the second paragraph would also make that one very long while the first paragraph would be very short (not that that is a major consideration). However, I did move the sentence to the bottom of the first paragraph, so it segues more smoothly into the second. Is that an acceptable compromise? — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and how that they impacted the 100 years" → "and how they impacted the 100 years"
  • "by Field Music's David and Peter Brewis" → "by David and Peter Brewis"
  • "The starting point for the project" → "The starting point for the museum project" to specify it's not the album
  • "exact moment when the war ended" → "exact moment that the war ended"
  • "After conducting researching" → "After conducting research"
    • Ugh, I had some rather embarrassing typos in the lead! Apologies; I think some of these I had thought I previously fixed on a copy edit, but perhaps it didn't save. I've fixed this one now. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War I, and instead" → "World War I. They instead" as the sentence is a bit of a run-on
  • "topics are addressed in the songs" → "topics are addressed in the songs on Making a New World"
  • "first single" → "lead single"
  • "for dressing war wounds." → "for dressing war wounds, and was released in September 2019."
  • Follow this in the same para with "It was followed by the singles "Money Is a Memory" and "Beyond That of Courtesy" later that year, while "Do You Read Me?" was released as the final single in 2020."
  • "two real-time band run-throughs" → "two real-time band run-throughs by Field Music"
  • "Field Music guitarist" → "the band's guitarist"
  • "when the band toured in support of the album" → "when they toured in support of the album in 2020"
  • "Making a New World features a diverse mix" → "The latter features a diverse mixture"
    • I changed the paragraphs a bit during my edits, so this sentence begins a new paragraph now. If we keep it that way, I think it makes sense to keep the album title in, rather than "the latter". But let me know your thoughts. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target vocal harmonies to Vocal harmony
  • "The album received generally positive reviews and was praised for its" → "Making a New World received generally positive reviews from music critics and was praised for the"
    • If we are indeed keeping the album title in the prior sentence (up to you!) that means adding it here will create a bit of redundancy. So for now I've made the changes you suggest, but kept the "the album" part. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with writers complimenting praising Field Music" → "with Field Music being complimented"
  • "Some negative reviews said an album" → "Some critics were more negative, saying the album"
  • I may have further comments about fixes once it has been trimmed to four paragraphs.

Further comments for the new lead

  • "The primary recordings for Making is a New World came" → "The primary recordings for the album came"
  • "used for the museum shows and tour dates for the album" → "used for the former's tour dates and the museum shows" since you will have already used "the album" for referencing it in the para
  • Bonus: just noticed the infobox has the first single's release date listed as 03 January; change to 3 January 2020 instead

Background

[edit]

Lyrics and themes

[edit]
  • Sure this should come after the Musical style section?

Individual stories

[edit]

End of the war

[edit]

Technological and medical advances

[edit]

Social and cultural movements

[edit]

Present day

[edit]

Musical style

[edit]

Suite style

[edit]

Mix of genres and moods

[edit]

Changed. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumental pieces

[edit]

Vocals and instrumentation

[edit]

Recording and production

[edit]

Release

[edit]

Sales

[edit]

Critical reception

[edit]
  • There is a 10 score limit per MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template. You do have more reviews to add to the scores but have chosen not to for some reason; add the five other most notable reviews here
  • "Making a New World was well-received by most critics, with an aggregated Metacritic rating of 73/100 based upon 18 reviews, which the website characterised as "generally positive reviews".[143] The album also received an aggregated rating of 7.2/10 on AnyDecentMusic? based upon 22 reviews.[144]" → "Making a New World was met with generally positive reviews from music critics. At Metacritic, the album received an average score of 75, based on 22 reviews.[143] Aggregator AnyDecentMusic? gave it 7.2 out of 10, based on their assessment of the critical consensus.[144]"
  • This section is way too extensive; see the recently passed GA Ye for an example of how long critical reception should be. However, keep positive reviews alongside the few non-positive to lead the article to remaining neutral.
    • I have to disagree. This section is consistent with feedback I've received in past GA and FA review processes for other Field Music albums such as Commontime (album) and Open Here. Rather than just a collection of review blurbs, the section is organized by specific statements and themes (i.e., "Many reviewers described Making a New World as an ambitious album...", "...described it as a particularly niche and idiosyncratic work...", "...too many ideas and narrative elements to form a cohesive album...", etc.) which are supported by {{#tag:ref}} notes as well as occasional quotes. As for interspersing positive and non-positive, I have been specifically told not to do this in the past, and to instead put them into specific sections so they won't get lost in the shuffle, which is why most of the negative comments about the article are paired together. I don't think there is much risk of coming across as non-neutral, however, as the article clearly states both here and in the lead that not all reviews were positive. — Hunter Kahn 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant with my initial comments that you mix positive and non-positive as in putting positive first, then having non-positive after them – with mixed coming first, then negative. However, the extensiveness is now something I do not see issue with after having heard that this has been consistent for your Field Music albums, and nothing at WP:RECEPTION writes against you; just remember not to be too repetitive with wording though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lists in the last para of the section should be split into an accolades sub-section.
  • "PopMatters writer Jordan Blum said" → "Blum said"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee Hammon of NARC Magazine called" → "Hammon called"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uncut writer Sharon O'Connell said the album was delivered" → "O'Connell said the album is delivered"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victoria Segal of Q described" → "Victoria Segal from Q described" for variety
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meg Berridge of Gigwise wrote" → "Berridge wrote"
  • "enthralling to listen to."" → "enthralling to listen to"."
  • Only done the first para but will take a look at the rest after you make the initial fixes I mentioned, since this will probably have influence on what changes you will need to make; one tip would be to not reintroduce people who have already been introduced
    • I did make changes so that reviewers already introduced elsewhere in the article were not introduced again. But I guess we need to have further conversation about this, since we disagree about this section. I respect your opinion of course and have incorporated almost all of your edits so far, but I feel it's already fairly condensed (there is a LOT more I could have included that I left out) and I don't really feel significantly scaling it back would benefit the article. I'm hoping we can work it would, though, and that the article won't fail simply because of this... — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued assessment

Accolades

[edit]

Track listing

[edit]

Personnel

[edit]
  • Add "Credits adapted from AllMusic" at the top of the section before both musicians and technical personnel, with the AM ref solely cited at the end of the added credits statement

Charts

[edit]

See also

[edit]
  • Are you sure linking to such a large list is necessary?

References

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Citations

[edit]

Works cited

[edit]
  • What's up with a and b, respectively, after works one and two; why is that included?
  • Are you sure multiple publishers should be included here in parts?
[edit]

Final comments and verdict

[edit]
  •  On hold for two weeks as this article is very large, good luck though! --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kyle Peake I believe I've addressed all of the initial comments you've made, though I know you may have some follow-up remarks (and indeed it looks like you've already made some). I have to run right now, but I will try to look at the follow-ups you made later tonight or tomorrow, and am more than willing to work with you on any other improvements you think are necessary. Thank you so much for your comprehensive review; I think this is the most thorough GAN review I've ever been involved with! — Hunter Kahn 21:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn There are comments that I clearly stated are for the new lead that you still need to respond to before I can pass this as a GA, as well as the accolades sub-section. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn all you need to do is fix the reception and this should be good to go! --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Making_a_New_World&oldid=1208727641"