Talk:Northern Lites/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a shame you've had to wait so long for this review. Not my kind of music, but the name rings a vague bell.

Resolved

"played by keyboardist and" Name of the keyboardist? Fixed  Done "named 'Single of the Week' by" Why single quotes?  Done Because it's a term rather than a quote. Have changed though, I'm guessing this is Wikipedia like using double quotes for quotes? "The music video for "Do or Die" was directed by the Super Furry Animals and Martin McCarthy and features footage of curling and Irish road bowling." What significance does this have? Doh! Fixed  Done ""Northern Lites'" melody was" The apostrophe looks crazy. How about "The melody of "Northern Lites" was"  Done "although some critics have interpreted the track as being about "questioning one's faith"," Example of critics? Example of the lyrics they quote? Quote from such critics? Not a gamebreaker, but would be nice This is something that Rhys said, I haven't actually found any reviews that give this interpretation and I've done a lot of research! "The steel drums parts" Odd phrase  Done Changed to "The steel drum parts" "band's 'greatest hits' compilation" Again, single quotes? Perhaps a link to greatest hits?  Done Have linked greatest hits. "The NME gave" Italics, link?  Done "the NME described" Name of the reviewer, if not known, something like "a reviewer writing for the NME"? See comment below. Inconsistency between "the NME" and "NME"; I don't mind either way, but consistency would be good. I can't find the example you mean unless you're referring to the entry in the accolades table? The magazine is always called The NME in prose but I think it's right to just use NME in the table as that's what the article is called. In the lead. J Milburn (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC) Ah, that one. The 'the' is inherited because it's a list. To avoid repetition of 'the' one might say The Times, Guardian and Independent rather than The Times, The Guardian and The Independent. "The magazine placed the track at number 3 in their single of the year list for 1999.[15]" Mention first and second? Helps put it in context. I'm not so sure about this - seems like unnecessary information to me. "awarded 'Single of the Week' in" You know what I'm gonna say. Also, the capitalisation of "Single" and "Week" are inconsistent.  Done ""Northern Lites" was also awarded 'Single of the Week' in the May 15 1999 issue of the Melody Maker by guest reviewers Gay Dad who described the song as "twisted and psychedelic"." Some commas are really needed in there somewhere.  Done

• It isn't Mojo or Q, it's the reviewers, writing for the publications. Same with the newspapers, and so on.

  I would disagree, the reviews are thought of as being the opinion of the magazine not just the writer. This is how the magazines themselves refer to reviews and how pretty much every book I've read talks about critical reaction. Occasionally reviewers names will be mentioned if they are well known (Lester Bangs, Nick Kent etc.) but even then the opinion is that of the magazine the review appeared in.

  Huh. It just seems slightly ridiculous to me- you wouldn't write (using the book closest to me) "Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Ireland describes the species as inedible" you would say "Roger Phillips describes the species as inedible". J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

  To be honest I would say the former but that's another story! When albums are released they frequently have stickers on with reviews - they never give the name of the reviewer though, only the magazine the review came from. We also have review templates which only have fields for publications not reviewers. Cavie78 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  The style just doesn't come across as very professional. Sure, for tables listing ratings or something, it works to just name the publication, but ignoring the people behind the articles just doesn't seem like something a serious publication would do (admittedly, I haven't really read any academic works on pop music, but I've read plenty on other subjects). I've written two featured articles on albums and two on musicians, and all four referred to authors over publications, as do my other articles, as would any piece of work I was submitting academically. It's just better form. J Milburn (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  As I say it is standard practice across the board in music publications, from newspapers to magazines to serious scholarly works See examples here, here, here and here In the last example The Guardian mentions reviews in several magazines, and one of the newspaper's own reviews, yet only mentions Charles Shaar Murray by name. Cavie78 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  The Guardian is neither an encyclopedia nor an academic work, both of which Wikipedia hopes to be. If we're to come across as a professional, academic encyclopedia, it would be nice if we could start writing like one. J Milburn (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

→*From the first books that I picked up from my bookshelf:

White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties / Dominic Sandbrook p.413 (Discussing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) "The The Times Literary Supplement described the lyrics as a 'barometer for our times'; the New York Review of Books hailed a 'new and Golden Renaissance of Song'; and the American magazine Newsweek called it 'The Beatles' Waste Land', after the poem by T.S. Eliot."

Exile on Main St. / Bill Janovitz p.85 (Discussing the song "Tumbling Dice") "The Melody Maker review of "Tumbling Dice" articulated the significance of the song's release, via the band itself, noting, 'It is impossible to see their names on the label and not undergo inner convulsions in which joy, mirth, tears [...]"

The Man Called Cash / Steve Turner p.253 (Discussing American Recordings) Rolling Stone called it "unquestionably one of his best albums." Billboard gushed "never has the man in black produced a work of such brilliance [...]"

I don't really know what more I can say! Cavie78 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so violently opposed to attributing these opinions to the people who wrote them? J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are you so violently opposed to leaving it as it is? I've provided you with plenty of examples of this form of attribution. If you would rather write that way in articles you contribute to then that's fine but I would rather not - it adds unnecessary detail. Cavie78 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed so strongly because this comes across as a poor academic style- if someone submitted an essay written like that to an academic publication or institution, they would be shot right down. Your belief that this "adds unnecessary detail" is hardly proportional to the strength by which you try to defend it. As for the view that stating the author of a directly quoted view is "unnecessary detail", well... J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

→I have given you plenty of examples to show you that this style is considered perfectly acceptable when discussing music reviews. Can we just get this out of the way? I don't see how this last remaining point has anything to do with WP:WIAGA. Cavie78 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The GA criteria require that articles are well written, and this is not a particularly professional style, and they require that the article is neutral, which entails an appropriate encyclopedic tone. I will say now that I strongly doubt an article written like this would pass FAC, and, while GAC has lower requirements, I think there's something a little ridiculous about you actively refusing to fix an issue. I am going to request a second opinion on this issue. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

GA criteria state that "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I'm sorry but I don't see how you can say the article fails to achieve any of these things. The 'Neutral' criteria states that an article should "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias." and, again, I don't see how you can claim this article fails to do that. I don't want to 'fix' the issue as I don't think there is anything to fix. I have been studying music for over twenty years and, as I have told you more than once, this is an acceptable style. I have provided you with examples and tried to be civil while you have used words like "ridiculous", called my writing "poor", claimed I am somehow "violently opposed" to your suggestion by simply providing you with reasons why I disagree and added snide phrases such as "If we're to come across as a professional, academic encyclopedia, it would be nice if we could start writing like one." Disagreements are inevitable on Wikipedia but I think it might be worth considering that, just because an editor disagrees with you, this does not mean they are a) wrong and b) an idiot. Cavie78 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Trying to derail a nomination by accusing me of incivility will get you nowhere; my comments have been about the style of the article and its text. When you submit an article to a review process, sorry, but you've got to expect that. My criticism has been constructive, you just haven't liked it. Further, playing the experience card isn't going to do much; I've also been reading and writing academic texts for years, and, on Wikipedia, have written four featured articles on the subject of music alone. Our basic dispute seems to come down to whether this article should use a standard academic style (though, your comment above dated 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC) perhaps implies you disagree that this is a standard academic style? If you want to go down that road...), or whether this article/this article's subject matter is an exception to the rule, meaning that stating the author of a view is "unnecessary detail". As I say, I have asked for a third opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "derail a nomination" (whatever that is meant to mean), I am merely pointing out that a) this isn't a GA issue and b) you should try and be more civil. Cavie78 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• Third opinion - In my experience it is best to attribute opinions to the author directly in the text. Opinions inherently come from people. It may be that a publication's policy is to defend the reviews it has published in its publication but the opinions come from the author. For examples, see anyone of the book-articles I've done (on my userpage, like The World Without Us#Reception). Sometimes it is an independent person who contracted-out a review to the publication (not an employee of the publication, 'John Doe writing in x magazine writes that...'), and sometimes it is an magazine staff reporter ('Jane Doe of x magazine writes that...'). It isn't possible in every instance (and it isn't a hard-and-fast rule) because some publications do not identify the author and sometimes it does make more sense (like 'NME gave it 3 stars' or 'NME named it one of its Singles of th Year). Incidently, I do not agree with JMilburn's Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Ireland example above, but that is getting off-topic. maclean (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Granted, but in those cases, it would perhaps be best to say "Writers for Magazine" or something. A magazine can't have an opinion. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

None of the writers are notable enough to have their own articles on here - the only reason the things they have written are included is because they appear in notable publications/websites. Cavie78 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, you're wrong, they're included because they are considered reliable (reliability does not mean notability, and notability does not mean reliability). Secondly, so what? I've explained why your style is poor academic form, and the other two people who have expressed an opinion agree with me. It makes no sense to attribute opinions to publications. I'm pretty much sick of this; if you're not going to fix it, then I'm done, and I will fail the article because of the poor writing style (1a) which threatens the neutrality of the article because of the inappropriate tone (4). If you are going to fix it, please fix it. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

→It would be entirely inappropriate to fail the article for these reasons. Even if I agreed with you about the correct way to attribute reviews in a music article, Good Article criteria 1a states "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct" it says nothing about "academic style". Is the prose clear and concise? Yes. Is the spelling and grammar correct? Yes. Good Article criteria 4 states that an article should "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias" How am I being unfair or showing bias? You say that "the neutrality of article is threatened" but I don't see how this can possibly be the case. I aren't pushing one opinion over another and I give both good and bad reviews of the single. As I've tried to explain, and as I've illustrated with examples from both magazines, newspapers and books, this an accepted style when writing about music. The examples I have given include the work of professional journalists, music journalists and a historian who was formally a lecturer at Oxford University. Cavie78 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

You're wikilawyering. An encyclopedic tone is important, and articles which do not have it should not be good articles. The fact that this specific issue is not mentioned in the criteria does not mean you can do what you like. In any case, this has been discussed, and the consensus is fairly clear. Do you really think I can promote an article which uses a style which a discussion concluded was not appropriate? Alternatively, I can fix it myself, then fail it for instability when you revert? I'm not interested in playing the lawyer game. Wikipedia articles should be written, firstly, in an academic style, and secondly, as consensus dictates. If an article is not written in these ways, it should not be promoted to good article status, regardless of the exact "word of law". J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, you haven't edited the article in nearly two weeks, and haven't edited this page for the best part of two weeks. The article has been waiting long enough- please make the change, or the article will be failed. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've provided you with examples of this sort of writing from scholarly publications on music and shown that this sort of change isn't required anyway by GA. You've managed to sap all my enthusiasm for Wikipedia which no doubt doesn't bother you in the slightest. I have no interest in the kind of petty arguments you seem to revel in so have decided to take semi-retirement. Although I can't imagine you will listen I would advise that you try and be more civil in future communication with other Wikipedians. Cavie78 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I was not in any way uncivil. Wikipedia aims to follow academic standards, and, though we do not agree on what these standards are, the consensus from this discussion is clear. If the ideal of a consensus driven project are not for you, then, sorry, but there's not a lot I can do to help you. As you know, I am now going to fail the article for the reasons I outlined. In attempting to maintain standards, I certainly do not aim to offend, and I really don't think that anything I said was improper. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

I'll look at the rest a little later, nipping away for a few minutes now. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC) The fact the music video section is hidden away below the accolades table looks poor. This is a common format I use and no-one has ever had an issue before. I think it would seem stranger if it appeared before the critical reaction and release section personally. The lead implies that there was no music video? The reason quotes are used is to highlight the fact that this is Rhys's opinion i.e. he doesn't think the video is very good/professional. I see what you mean though - I was going to make it more explicit but it's implied rather than directly stated so I didn't want to be accused of OR. What do you think? I think the lead definitely needs to mention that there is a music video, and I see it does now. Perhaps link the two sentences with a "but" or something? If there is more explicit criticism of the video from him, include that? Have hopefully made it more explicit in the lead. Rhys says the same thing in a couple of interviews I have but never directly criticises the video. Cavie78 (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC) "This shot fades to show a full-screen translucent, fluorescent blue, image of the "warrior", also from the single's cover, which moves from the centre to the bottom right before shrinking and remaining stationary in the top right for the duration of the video opposite the SFA logo which is shown in the top left and also remains throughout the video." Needs rephrasing and splitting.  Done There's something really weird about the fact you describe the video in detail (a little too much detail, I would say, and I'm not convinced the image is adding much) yet then jump so someone saying that there is no video. See above. I think the image is just as valid as the coverart for identification of the video. It also shows the images in the top right and left which are hard to fully explain in prose alone. I see what you mean about the detail but I think it's ok. Concerning the image, I am not really seeing how it meets WP:NFCC#8. What's it adding to the article? Would it really be lacking otherwise? Concerning the level of detail, I think it's pretty weird that we have a limit to about 300 words' plot summary for films, yet you can fill a section with details of a 3 min video? Unless we have much in the way of critique of the video, it just feels like trivia. J Milburn (talk) 23:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC) I guess we all have different opinions about stuff like this. As far as I'm concerned a screenshot is crucial. Music videos are a visual art form which can never be adequately described in words alone. Sure prose can give an idea of what the video looks like but prose can also give an idea of what a song sounds like, what cover art looks like etc. By that logic no free use images should ever be allowed. A reader gets a more accurate picture of what the video looks like thanks to the screenshot, which aids identification, and is shown the images which appear in the top left and right which are difficult to correctly visualise from the description alone. If I saw an article which dealt with a visual art form and there wasn't an image I would be asking why. I've removed some detail from the description of the video but I think taking any more out will reduce the quality of the article. Cavie78 (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC) I understand your point, but the issue here is that the video is not of massive significance; one of the band members denies its existence! If we had reliable sources critiquing the visual style of the video or something akin, it would be a different matter, but the article is, first and formost, about the song. All this picture really does is show a guy with a beard. I'm just not seeing what it's adding to the article. Our question should always be not whether it's OK for an article to use an image, but if the article really needs to. J Milburn (talk) 02:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Sorry to butt in both of you, but since I had pointed out similar issues to CAvie in the review of "Fire in My Heart", I wanted to see what JMilburn was saying about the image, because both the music video image for the articles are kinda similar in that I pointed out the basic failing of WP:NFCC#1 with the later, and Milburn is pointing out the #8 aspects of failing. Cavie I'm sure you are seeing from where our reasoning is coming? I develop the Madonna articles for GA/FA, hence I am pointing the article "Open Your Heart" as an example. Here, there is a thorough reception about the video, the importance of the iconic and the symbolisms associated with it, and the legacy it left. Hence an image of MAdonna in the video becomes critical in understanding it. For these two videos, this is exactly what is lacking. For "NL", the image is simply redundant, for "FIMH" the image passes NFCC#8, but you are making a free alternative exist with the prose, as I pointed out. I hope this clears things a little for you. REgards — Legolas (talk2me) 03:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Legolas, it's appreciated, I think the discussion was heading towards needing a third opinion anyway. J Milburn (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC) →:I can see we're you're coming from but to me the inclusion of a screenshot from the video is just as valid as the use of the coverart. I could describe that in prose, it's from the physical medium the song was released on, it is not the song itself, yet it is universally recognised that cover art is ok in the infobox (in fact it is even required by Wikiproject:Songs for singles) A music video is an important part of the promotion of the single, and a screenshot (that is one frame of a video I hasten to add) gives a far better idea of the look and style than prose could ever hope to do. The video will have been shown on Mtv and other music channels, chart shows etc. and readers may primarily recognise the song from the visuals if they haven't heard it for a long time (it happens to me a lot) I think the alleged WP:NFCC#1 fail is just plain silly, NFCC#8 is more understandable but I fail to see how a screenshot of a music video in a section specifically about that music video in an article about the song that music video is for could be considered mere decoration. Cavie78 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC) No. Both the images clearly violate NFCC#1 & 8 respectively in FIMH and NL. I have explained my reasoning for FIMH, for NL, this is an exact example of how NFCC#8 gets violated. How difficult it is too imagine a bearded man in front of a rocky beach? Come to think of it, the image at NL, fails both 1 and 8. Anyways, hope Milburn judges this better. He is more experienced than I am. — Legolas (talk2me) 16:33, 4 January 2011 (UTC) Cavie, you can talk all you like about how people recognise songs from the music video, but that's just not going to wash. What we have is a (rather extensive, unsourced) discussion of what the video shows, and little else about it. Whether or not we have a section on it, this does not justify the inclusion of non-free content. What does it matter what this bloke with the beard looked like? Do you have reliable sources discussing the visual impact of the bearded bloke? No? Then why precisely is it so essential that the reader can see a picture of him? J Milburn (talk) 00:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC) How is it different to screenshots in FAs such as "Baby Boy", "Hey Ya!", "Hey Baby", "Hollaback Girl", "Paranoid Android" etc? How is it that coverart is ok but a screenshot of the video isn't? Legolas says "How difficult is it to imagine a bearded man on a rocky beach" but that's not the point. Firstly, how difficult is it to imagine, say, a man in a black cape and helmet? Yet an image is ok for Darth Vader. This is because we can well imagine something but that doesn't mean that is what it actually looks like. Secondly the image is specifically of the video, I could put a free picture of a random bearded man there but that would be silly. Sigh. Cavie78 (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Cavie, I think you are not getting the points that we are trying to make. Issue is with the image portrayal. The image is of a rather ordinary bearded man. I would have seen and validated your points if it would have been something of, say, Saruman from Lord of the Rings, where he is described as a bearded man with something unusual on his head etc etc. And also, as pointed out in FIMH, the vivid description is what is making a free alternative exist. This is what makes the image fail NFCC#1, coupled with the fact that it does not help readers in understanding anything more about the article, than already being said in the section. The image in FIMH passed #8, because of the non-imaginable aliens, but was failing #1 as I pointed out. However, you changed the description, and it was fine to go. But here, it seems completely redundant. Why not you try some other image? I haven't seen the video, but can try suggesting. — Legolas (talk2me) 11:36, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Cavie, you're approaching the level of deliberately trying to miss the point. You keep trying to assert, in a very roundabout way, this article has some kind of "right" to have a screenshot of the video. That's simply not the case, so, the question is, what is that screenshot adding to the article? It's non-free; it may only be used if it adds significantly to the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC) I have to say I'm very disappointed, particularly with your assertion that I've made a deliberate attempt to miss the point. I care about Wikipedia and want to help, in some small way, make it the best source of knowledge on the net, end of story. I don't have some sort of sinister motive to get round policy or steal someone else's copyright - I have written and researched this article from scratch and my only interest is in making it the best it can be. In my opinion the screenshot does the same job as the cover art, it provides visual identification of the music video as well as illustrating the two icons that appear throughout in a way that cannot be done better in words alone. I feel uncomfortable about removing the image purely for the sake of a little green circle but I think the best course of action is for me to try and persuade other editors to adopt a more common sense approach to non-free media over at WP:NFCC so it's gone for now. Cavie78 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Again, you're drifting into a "if the cover is fine, this must be" argument; I have already explained why this is not the case. Our NFCC, whether you feel they are "common sense" or not, are there to provide a compromise between those who would have us use non-free content to the full extent of the law, and those who would have us use no non-free content at all. I am pleased you have removed this image, as it would have ended up gone eventually, one way or another. This way is the least stressful for all involved. J Milburn (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC) Sources look good (not bad for such an old single), but the dating styles are inconsistent.  Done The webzines and BBC do not need to be italicised.  Done

Hope this helps. I'm placing the article on hold for now.

Thanks for the review, I'll try and address your concerns later today. Cavie78 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to attribute opinions to the writers, in the style; "Joe Bloggs, writing in Practical Orchestra, said "Blah...blah...blah" Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)