Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)

Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album) 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.
Review: June 6, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Hip hop Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hip hop, a collaborative effort to build a useful resource for and improve the coverage of hip hop on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Hip hopWikipedia:WikiProject Hip hopTemplate:WikiProject Hip hopHip hop articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. Joeyquism (talk) 19:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maps (Billy Woods and Kenny Segal album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: ModernDayTrilobite (talk · contribs) 13:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Joeyquism (talk · contribs) 21:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @ModernDayTrilobite:! So awesome to see Billy Woods and Kenny Segal at GAN - I loooooove Hiding Places ("Crawlspace" is my favorite track - that Anatolian rock sample is just too hard). I'll try to get this review done within the week. If you have any questions, let me know! --Joeyquism (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking on the review! Looking forward to your feedback :) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 22:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Prose is mostly good, but there are some things (mostly nit) that can be addressed: "Soft Landing" has a music video, directed by actor Tim Blake Nelson and his son Henry Nelson; this pair also directed a music video for the Maps track "Babylon by Bus". — A bit awkwardly written; perhaps condense it to ""Song A" and "Song B" received music videos directed by actor...". The album has also been characterized as a "travelogue" — Wikilink "travelogue". I think the corresponding article is "travel literature". Woods also makes frequent references to marijuana, which is depicted on Maps as a source of comfort in unfamiliar places; however, Woods' struggles to obtain cannabis of acceptable price or quality are a recurring obstacle he faces on his journey. — Can do without the two synonyms for "weed" in one sentence; it feels redundant. Maybe try "obtain it at an acceptable price and quality"? The second track, "Soft Landing", centers around a chorus that interpolates "Feeling Good". — Briefly clarify what "Feeling Good" is (1964 pop standard). The Content section could benefit from some wikilinks; I'm seeing airplane safety brochures, Szechuan food, marijuana dispensary... Just don't WP:SEAOFBLUE it. Miloslaw Archibald Rugallini of SputnikMusic gave further praise... — Wikilink and italicize Sputnikmusic, and add it to the professional ratings table.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I'd be careful about the use of the word "observed" in the critical reception section (MOS:CLAIM), but otherwise it looks fine.
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.	Looks good. I'd advise archiving the links to avoid link rot, preferably with a tool like IABot.
	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).	Source spot check: [1] — See below. Otherwise, everything else looks good. [4] — Source supports all claims. [6] — Source supports April 12 release date and composition of "FaceTime". [11] — See below. Otherwise, everything else looks good. [14] — Source supports all claims. [16] — Source supports all claims. [20] — Source supports quote used and composition of "Year Zero". [26] — Source supports ranking of 4 on Consequence's year-end list. All sources are reliable and verifiable.
	2c. it contains no original research.	I might just be overlooking something, but this line: ... focusing less on any specific destination and moreso on the experience of rapidly and repeatedly traveling from one unfamiliar location to another. It doesn't seem to line up with anything said in [1] or [11]. Of course, please correct me if I am blatantly overlooking something, but this seems to be an assumption more than a statement. Otherwise, everything else looks fine.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Copyvio check returns 47.9% on reference [24] (the Huck one), and 40.8% on reference [13] (Rolling Stone). I understand that these are due to quotes, but perhaps these could benefit from some paraphrasing. The quotes in question begin with: When he showed up, it was memorable... I was expanding upon the idea of maintaining relationships at a distance... They're blockquoted, so they should theoretically be fine, but maybe consider paraphrasing at least one of them — two sources at over 30% similarity is questionable, IMO. Otherwise, everything is fine.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Looks focused and within scope to me.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Presents the background, recording, content, and reception with little else.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Presents a fair and neutral description of events. More mixed reviews are noted in the critical reception section, and no undue praise in song/composition descriptions.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Looks good.
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.	Looks good. Album cover falls under fair use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Looks good.
	7. Overall assessment.	@ModernDayTrilobite: For now, I'm putting this on hold. The article is well-researched and well-written, but it just needs some tweaking before I can comfortably pass it as a GA. I can care of any minor adjustments if requested. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to let me know by pinging me. Thank you for your hard work on this article! I learned a lot about this album after reading this (didn't realize "Babylon by Bus" sampled Aphex Twin — I knew the beat felt familiar!) and I'm so glad to be able to review your article. --Joeyquism (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joeyquism: Thank you for the detailed review! I've gone through your points and they make sense to me. Some specific notes I wanted to raise about the revisions I've made:

I contextualized "Feeling Good" as a pop standard, but decided to omit the year as I felt the sentence flowed better without it.
In addition to adding the wikilinks you suggested, I wikilinked gentrification in the Content section, and piped "synth keyboard" to synthesizer and "pop standard" to standard (music). To that end, I wanted to flag the phrase pop standard "Feeling Good" for your thoughts; in my opinion, this is the most natural way to write the sentence, but the two wikilinks are separated by just a quotation mark so it's potentially verging on SEAOFBLUE. My personal instinct is that it works, but I'm interested to hear your thoughts as well.
About the point you raised in 2c: the passages I had in mind when I wrote that clause were Instead of emphasizing immersion in distant places and sounds like [other albums], Maps foregrounds transit (from source 1) and here is a protagonist who is perpetually on planes, in Ubers, or alone in hotels (from source 11). I tried rephrasing the relevant line in the article to involve less extrapolation; let me know if the new phrasing addresses your concerns, or if you'd like me to revise further.
About the blockquotes: I'm reluctant to completely excise either blockquote, as I think they break up the section visually to avoid a "wall of text" feel, but I've used ellipses to cut out some of the more ancillary portions of each quote and reduce the similarity. As of my latest check, the Rolling Stone source is now showing 28.6% similarity, and Huck is now showing 32.0%. Let me know if this addresses your concerns, or if you'd like me to prune further.

I believe I've fully incorporated all of the suggestions that I didn't discuss in the bullet points above, but please feel free to let me know if I've missed anything. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ModernDayTrilobite Thank you for the update!

I think wikilinking "pop standard" is fine, but you can also get the same information by clicking "Feeling Good". Either way, it's a bit of a minute point and I'm sure it's not that big a deal.
I am seeing the quotes you mentioned regarding 2c - that's my fault for not being so thorough. Thank you for the clarification.
Blockquotes are looking much better. No further pruning needing IMO.

After reading through the article a couple more times, I think everything is looking in good shape! Well done! Joeyquism (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2024 (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.