Talk:Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides Non-Stop Remix Album

Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides Non-Stop Remix 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: August 27, 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

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Passed. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:08, 27 August 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:Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides Non-Stop Remix Album/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 04:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk · contribs) 01:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my name is AstonishingTunesAdmirer and I will review this article soon, probably later today ~~(after I finish listening to this album)~~. See you in a bit! AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 01:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. 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):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Prose

The prose is mostly clear, except for the following:

"as a release limited to one hundred clutch bags designed" (and a similar text in the lead section) – to me, this reads like the release itself was the clutch bag, and it's not immediately obvious how it's related to the album. FWIW, the Paper article is just as confusing ("[the release] comes as a clutch"); the Pitchfork article, however, clarifies that the clutch bag was sold with copies of the album. Can't decide what's the best way to say this, but maybe something like "Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides Non-Stop Remix Album was officially announced on 17 July 2019, and was available exclusively with the purchase of one of 100 limited-edition clutch bags...". Or split the sentence in two, like "...announced on 17 July 2019. It was included with..."
- Done
Somewhat related to above, the Paper article mentions that the bag came with 3 discs, but the article only mentions 2 discs. I assume the third disc was the original album? Any info about that?
- Yes, the third disc is the original album. The remix album itself is two discs. Skyshiftertalk 19:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the album could've been announced" → "the album could have been announced" – per MOS:CONTRACTIONS since it's outside of the quote
- Done
"It was released on digital and streaming platforms" – what's the difference between digital and streaming platforms?
- Fixed
"Ryce said that the album's [...] Ryce said that it delivers..." – repetitive, but also ambiguous. From the context, it seems that "it delivers" refers to the second half, while the source says that about the entire album. Also since both sentences cite the same source, you can keep it at the end of the second sentence.
- Fixed for the first part. For the second part, there's a guideline saying that quotes should be directly followed by references, but I can't find it.
"Oil of Every Pearl's Un-Insides Non-Stop Remix Album was positively received" has 3 citations after it, but none of them say that it was positively received, so I believe the citations shouldn't be there. IMO it works fine without sources since it's a summary of the rest of the section and it's not controversial.
- Done
"Resident Advisor gave the album their "RA Recommends" badge, and, in its review, Ryce said" – sounds a bit clunky to me. Also I think it's worth repeating Ryce's full name here since it wasn't mentioned in this section. "Resident Advisor gave the album their "RA Recommends" badge, with their reviewer Andrew Ryce saying"?
- Done
A bit more debatable, but I also believe the next sentence is slightly repetitive (Ryce said, Ryce wrote) and I would replace it with something like "The journalist added:..."
- Done

Spot checks

Considering the number of sources used, I went ahead and checked all of them.

Confirms the announcement of the remix album Y
Confirms that the bag first appeared at the Grammy Awards Y
Confirms that the bag features the artwork Y
Both quotes are in it Y
The quote is in it and the write did indeed highlight the absence of a track Y
The source is less than ideal, but should be fine to confirm the release date and the tracklist Y
Confirmed the quote and that the tracks were fan favorites, however I see that it's number 17, not 19 N
Fixed
Confirmed the tracks included and a collaboration with Doss Y
All the quotes are in there Y
The quote is in there Y
Supports the quote and the Youtube release date Y
Confirmed nomination Y

@Skyshifter that should be it. Nice article overall. It's sufficiently broad, well-sourced. There are no copyright violations. Earwig's copyvio detector gives a false positive result, due to the lengthy name of the album. And the non-free image used has a rationale. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 14:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AstonishingTunesAdmirer: done! Skyshiftertalk 19:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! Promoted. AstonishingTunesAdmirer 連絡 21:06, 27 August 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.