Talk:Money Jungle/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 02:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll take this review. I'll be right back.

First, images, sourcing and article stability:

• The image is only of the album cover, and its fair use rationale seems sufficient.
• There is no issue that I can see with what sources are being used. I would suggest finding more if possible, but I will see how sufficient they are as I read the article...
• Article history seems peaceful. No bloodshed there ;)

Next, nitpicks:

Lead

• Might there be a specific day in February on which it was released?

Yes, but the only one I've seen is at AllMusic, which puts it in the wrong year. Exact release dates are not usually mentioned in jazz; exact recording dates are.

Ah, that seems to ring a bell for me. I remember reading that the art of discography was started by jazz fans who were concerned about the lack of information (such as release date) supplied by the label. Very well. LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"...impressed by the freedom of individual expression within a small-group setting."

Sounds very POV.

That's a summary of the Musicians section in Reception and influence.

I suppose I could leave it as is, but I still wish it could be fixed. It just rubs me the wrong way, like there's gotta be a more neutral way of saying it. LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

How about 'Hundreds of musicians have been inspired by the recording, in particular by the freedom of individual expression within a small-group setting'? EddieHugh (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I've thought about it... a good alternative would be "influenced". That's a perfectly neutral word that is used all over Wikipedia music articles. I've never seen "impressed" except on this article... seems I've encountered a lot of wikifirsts on this one ;) LazyBastardGuy 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Good one. Changed to "Hundreds of musicians have been influenced by the recording, in particular by the freedom of individual expression within a small-group setting", as I think that's what you mean. EddieHugh (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Background

• When were they working in Paris?

Done, as precisely as is possible.

• "who suggested doing" --> "who suggested recording"

Done.

• Why do we say he was "deputizing"?

Done.

"This was Mingus' first trio recording since 1957."

This might sound better in the lead paragraph, and/or in the next section.

Kept location, but absorbed into previous sentence.

• "Ellington telling them" --> "and Ellington told them"

Done.

Recording and music

• Is the street address of the studio necessary?

Some people are interested and the info is available, but hard to find.

It seems excessive as a point of focus on Wikipedia. I've never seen this in another album article. I think it would be enough to say what city the studio was in. LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It varies. Album FA sometimes have a Wikilink to the studio (and the address is in the studio's article), or, where there is no separate article, the address is given: Blonde on Blonde and Freak Out! are examples that include addresses. Here's a jazz forum where this studio is mentioned, with someone asking for more info. EddieHugh (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose we could leave it, at least for the time being. I don't know if you plan to take this up through FAC or not (although I find it very likely), but if you do, I wouldn't be surprised if it came up again there. Nonetheless, I have no objection. LazyBastardGuy 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• "1pm" --> "1 PM"

Changed to 1 pm, as in MoS.

Even better! LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

"...was one example."

This should go at the beginning of that phrase, so it reads, "...one example was 'crawling around...'"

Done.

• The authorship of "Caravan" is given in the tracklisting, but it sounds awkward to not say who wrote it if you say the first six songs were written by Ellington and this one was merely associated with him.

Tizol added.

• "strong bass notes" sounds POV.

The cited source has "tortured bass notes" and "declamatory intensity".

• Same for "aggressive", although perhaps you could qualify this so that it becomes clear it's not an opinionated word in this context.

Removed, as a simpler solution.

• "holds things together" is very POV. This article is starting to sound like a review.

Changed to "supports" (source has "cooks underneath", which is not much use).

• "even stronger" Again, this sounds POV. However, you could qualify this the same way you could qualify "aggressive" (and also this applies to the previous use of the word "strong").

Extended quotation instead.

• In a Wikipedia article, statements that say one thing makes another sound like some such is not kosher. You could say the publication Down Beat said the bass sounded like whatever because of something else.

Done.

• The next sentence has a few too many quoted words. And this time, I think it should just be paraphrased neutrally.

One left; others paraphrased.

• "Monkish" is not okay for a Wikipedia article. There are other ways of saying it was influenced by Thelonious Monk.

Thanks. Not sure how that stayed in. Now removed.

"...were first recorded for this album."

This just... doesn't sound right here. There's another reason for it I can't quite put into words, but at least one problem I have with it is it has a few too many possible meanings. Does it mean this album was the first time they got recorded? Or does it mean they were the first of this album's songs to be recorded for this album in particular?

Re-written.

• "Relatively relaxed" sounds POV.

The cited sources have "lovely ballad" and "almost meditative", but I've cut the phrase.

• "The others enter" The other what?

Done.

"...have added performances of four more compositions to the original LP:..."

"Have added" should just be "feature". "To the original LP" is unnecessary.

Done. Much better.

• "for Roach" or "by Roach"?

Kept, as "by" could confuse, being indicative of composition.

Oh, I think I see. So you're saying that his playing was influenced by Latin music? If that's the case, I think that should be specified... I mean, it sounds kind of like this is just one of the three guys' impression of that particular track, if it's his playing style that is under discussion that should be indicated more clearly. LazyBastardGuy 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Changed to "The last of these is a Latin-influenced track that features Roach." EddieHugh (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• The colon in the last sentence of that paragraph should be a dash. The colon feels too informal.

Done.

• "on the date" --> "during the session"

Done.

• Wait, wait, wait - was Mingus playing a bass guitar or a double bass? Whichever one it is, it needs to be specified any time his instrument is referred to. Using just "bass" is too informal.

Mingus wouldn't have liked that question! "double" added to lead, Personnel and first mention in main text. "bass"/"bassist" is standard terminology in jazz, so I've left the rest.

Hahaha, the times they are a-changin'. No issue with the personal noun, I suppose, but I am picky with the way the instruments are referred to because 1) bass refers either to an instrument's pitch relative to others in its family, or to a range of frequencies of sound, and 2) the bass guitar had been invented and released within the last ten years or so of this recording; it wouldn't be impossible for them to have been using it. (I know you can see it on the album cover which instrument he is using, but it's kind of blended-in with everything else. Besides, album covers in general aren't really considered good sources to use for who played what during a session ;) ) LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It was definitely a double bass. I've altered the wording and added another "double". There's only really one example left – "taking his bass with him". Change "bass" to 'instrument' if you wish for that example. EddieHugh (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It's not a huge concern, I could take it or leave it. LazyBastardGuy 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• The colon should be a dash, again.

Done.

An additional note, "Release history" should probably be moved up one section so it comes right after "Recording and music" and before "Reception and influence". I'll do a detailed breakdown of it when I get to it.

Done.

Reception and influence

• "Original" as pertaining to the album's original release is an unnecessary descriptor.

Done.

• "Contemporary" is also unnecessary; you've already introduced in that paragraph that the reviews listed there came from the same time period.

Done.

"Pianist Lafayette Gilchrist is one example: he states that..."

Done.

• "remain as pieces that" can be removed entirely.

Done.

• "Pianists have been impressed by Ellington's playing" should be removed, the second paragraph joined to the first, and "Of the compositions premiered" should be moved to the end of the third paragraph.

Done the third bit; moved Davis' comments to first para (which is on the album); and kept remains of second (which is on pianists' reactions).

Fair enough. LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Also, what are some groups or accomplishments (e.g. albums or songs) that the musicians being quoted have made? Why should the reader care about what they have to say here?

All but Lafayette Gilchrist (pianist in lots of groups) and Rhythm and Brass are wikilinked, so readers can form their own judgement. They're examples of well-known (in jazz) musicians stating why the album is important/interesting.

I would still suggest bringing some of them in. It's one thing to coddle readers and give them more than they need, it's another to assume they know where to go. Imagine this article is the only one on Wikipedia; with nowhere else to go for that information, where do you think people are going to look? Besides, it would help to expand that section just a bit, in my opinion. I'll help you out if you want, and you don't have to add a whole lot - just a significant album or group or two, as in "So-and-so (best-known for their album Album)..." with some differences in word choice to keep it from getting stale. LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see problems. 'Best known for...' would require a source, or it would be opinion. Most of these people are known more for their own name than for any recording or band membership (which in any case would just be someone else's name, which would set up the same problem...). John Medeski would be an exception, but adding 'of Medeski Martin & Wood' probably wouldn't help anyone. I'm also not keen on reducing someone's career to one piece of work or an association. Suggest or have a go if you think it can be done, though. EddieHugh (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I see, I see. I suppose we can leave this as is. LazyBastardGuy 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Release history (again keeping in mind what I said earlier)

"...in 1963 in mono and stereo versions."

Done.

"...so the 1987 reissue on CD was on Blue Note Records."

This should say, "...and subsidiary Blue Note Records reissued the album on CD in 1987."

Done.

"...for the 2002 Blue Note CD release by engineer Ron McMaster..."

Done.

"In this release, the original ordering of the first seven songs was returned to, with the other four songs added at the end, plus four alternative takes, increasing the number of tracks to 15."

Really clunky. Should say, "On this release, the first seven songs were arranged in their original order, with the other four songs and four alternative takes placed afterward."

Done, with modifications, to stress the change in number of tracks.

Track listing

Only one thing here - are the catalog numbers necessary? I have never seen this on other articles, especially not GAs or FAs.

I'd keep them, given the number of reissues in various countries, but you're right about precedent, so removed.

It's just that these exact contents could have been issued on various labels with various catalog numbers (and for such classic albums as these, they very often are), which makes one wonder why none of the myriad other release data are included, which also can cause some argument as to which can be included and which shouldn't per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. LazyBastardGuy 19:12, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Personnel

Curious... why are the original LP credits not cited while the reissue ones are?

I haven't seen the LP. Alternative sources added.

On hold since none of this is damning enough that the nomination would need to be withdrawn.

Thanks for the review. Changes made. All my comments are indented above. EddieHugh (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I still have a few concerns, as you've probably seen. Since I don't like to bug GA nominators constantly, if anything remains after the second time through, I'll probably just make some adjustments myself (and they won't be drastic, I just tend to come-up with ways of correcting minor things I find concerning that I don't note in my original review). LazyBastardGuy 19:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's fine; I'm around to deal with things. Indented follow-up comments are above. EddieHugh (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I think that's about everything. Just one, maybe two new concerns I've noted, that should be it and I'll pass it once these are done. LazyBastardGuy 04:43, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Two changes made, as described above. No plan to go to FA... EddieHugh (talk) 09:20, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that's too bad. 'Cause I have no doubt this article could make it someday, especially since it's so important in the history of music... Well, I'll pass it then. Good work! LazyBastardGuy 17:49, 18 September 2013 (UTC)