Jump to content

Talk:Rain in England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Rain in England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you don't mind another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one; I'm trying to clean out some of the older articles from the backlog. Again, sorry you had to wait so long for a reviewer; it seems there's many more people who want to nominate music articles this year than who want to review them, unfortunately. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

This looks like more extremely solid work from you. Again, it seems well written and well sourced, and I've made only a few tweaks as I read along. A few quibbles I didn't want to change without discussing are below:

  • "Rain in England is, most likely, the first ambient hip hop album" -- "most likely" seems like a mild overstatement of the sources--one says "perhaps", the second says "I'm just going to take his word". I'd suggest going with "is perhaps the first ambient hip hop album" or "which Lil B describes as the first ..." -- would either of these be acceptable to you?
  • " of influential hip hop blog " -- the "influential" here seems like minor peacocking/OR, since none of the other sources are evaluated in-text. Could this word simply be removed?
  • "The transcript of the lecture was itself adapted into an ambient music piece with a synthesized voice, and the result was compared to Rain in England" -- the passive voice of this sentence could be clarified to make it clear that E Rock adapted this rather than Lil B, and also who made the comparison; I had trouble understanding it without clicking through to the source. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your edits to address the above. I still think it's worth noting who made this comparison in-text, but this is a small enough point that I won't hold up the review for it. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
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. See minor clarity points above. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. See minor question re: WP:PEACOCK above
2. Verifiable with no original research:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
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). See very minor point about "most likely" above
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass as GA

To summarize, this article is clearly ripe for promotion; I'd just like to get your thoughts on these minor points first. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 March 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rain in England (album) → Rain in England – reverting undiscussed move – Dohn joe (talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dohn joe: "Rain in England" without disambiguater sounds more like weather than a pop music song. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The disambiguation is unnecessary because we don't have actual article on rain in England. A hatnote can point readers to an appropriate page from this one. As a note to the closing admin, the page was moved without consensus to the disambiguated title by IIO and should revert back if this discussion results in a "no consensus" close. -- Calidum 22:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move 13 March 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Good arguments on both sides: first off, obviously UK rainfall is way more significant, but Rain in wherever has never been a redirect to a similar page anywhere on Wikipedia (though now In ictu oculi has created some of those redirects, which is obviously fine). If you found a consensus here, congratulations, because after six weeks of this move request being open, I sure didn't. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Rain in England → Rain in England (album) – rain in England without capital 'R' should redirect to UK rainfall records or Climate of England. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is The Rain in Spain, evidently a song title since R is capitalized, the "rain" in this title is not capitalized. And why should "rain in England" in books refer to this album? It doesn't, "rain in England" in books refers to rain in England. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just like rain in Scotland, rain in Guinea, rain in Queensland, rain in South Sudan, rain in Benin, rain in Guyana, rain in Qatar, etc.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, some users would be WP:SURPRISED to be sent to rap albums in those cases too. Those should all redirect to rainfall section of [Climate of FOO] articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No evidence that the album is primary usage of the term "rain in England". DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per DrKiernan. It doesn't matter if there's no actual article at that title, if it's a plausible redirect to UK weather articles, and the album is not shown to be primary topic, then it should be a disambiguation page.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would say that a redirect that has not been created in 14 years for any country on Earth is not very plausible.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to Rain in England (album), but I think a two-way DAB would be the best thing for Rain in England undisambiguated, rather than a redirect and hatnote. Andrewa (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Andrewa: Can you explain why you think it is a good idea to send people looking for the only article on a phrase to a dab page? There have been zero redirects (let alone articles) created at Rain in XX in the history of WP. Whereas we know that people are actually interested in this topic.... Dohn joe (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's a good idea simply because I think that most of the people looking for this phrase won't want this article. That seems obvious to me, but I could be wrong, and/or there may be better ways of handling this than my suggestion. Andrewa (talk) 19:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that sounds ok in theory, but if there were any demand for Rain in XX redirects - i.e., if any appreciable number of readers had been searching for "rain in XX" articles, wouldn't at least one of those been redirects been created by now? (Of course, before In ictu created the ones above during this discussion.) Dohn joe (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dohn joe, a reader searching "rain in Scotland" does not create a redirect, so the non-existence of a redirect is not evidence that no reader has ever searched for "rain in Scotland"
Secondly the WP:RECOGNIZABILITY guideline indicates that we make search results recognizable from title - in your RM contributions you seem never to address this issue. For example [windowsill landscapes] produces "rain in England" in the search results. On a PC Google gives you a preview of a chunk of the article, but a mobile in searchbox doesn't do this. This is an (album) most of our album articles have (album), the (album) inconveniences no one. 07:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
The point is that WP editors create plausible redirects all the time. If there were any demand - from readers or editors - then someone - anyone - would have created a single rain in XX in the fourteen years of Wikipedia. The fact that not a single rain in XX article or redirect had ever been created for any country on the planet is pretty good evidence that readers - and editors - are not using that phrase to look for or link to climate in XX or rainfall totals in XX or similar. Whereas people are looking for Rain in England to find something called "Rain in England". If we send them to a dab page, that's an inconvenience which you never seem to acknowledge in your RMs and unilateral page moves. In any event, I was more interested in User:Andrewa's response. Dohn joe (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is a weak, erroneous argument - because something does not exist it does not mean it should not exist and it has never meant it is not a good idea. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Well, I could quibble as to whether an argument can be both weak and erroneous at the same time, if it's invalid (and I think it is) then that's that, but the point is well made for all reasonable purposes, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We don't have another article that would be the reasonable place to direct the title "Rain in England" to, or evidence that readers are coming here looking for something else. The hat notes to the meteorology articles already serve any confused readers.--Cúchullain t/c 20:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rain_in_England&oldid=1209951918"