Talk:Something/Anything?/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ritchie, I'll be glad to take this one. Sorry you've had to wait so long for a review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-5 days, but hopefully tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks solid and essentially ready to pass. It's well written, the sources appear reliable, there are no issues with the images, and I don't see any issues for neutrality or stability. I only see some minor level things that may need changing, some of which I went ahead and implemented myself. If you have objections to any changes, though, just let me know and I'm happy to discuss.

So let me know your thoughts on the below, I'll do some final source checks, and we should be all set. Thanks for your work on this one--it's come out very well. -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the earthquake, was this a major enough one that it would be possible to link a specific earthquake? Do we know a date? Otherwise I'd suggest delinking it as a basic term, but that's a judgement call and not an issue for GA either way.

The CD liner notes just say an earthquake. I've got no idea which one, and List of 20th-century earthquakes does not mention anything in California in late 1971, so I would suggest delinking it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a GA issue, but it seems odd to have a picture of Klingman but not Rundgren.

The problem here is there seem to be no free images at all of this subject, even tangentially. I was hoping for a shot of the studio, a suitable tape recorder, or a microphone. The images I got are really clutching at straws to be relevant! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would this one from the Rundgren article do? File:Todd Rungreen.jpg -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's from a live performance a few years later (I don't believe he did any gigs in this time, he was strictly a studio guy and really wanted to be a producer, as noted in the article) so I couldn't think of a way to fit it into the article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The performers, including Rundgren himself, only rehearsed the songs a few times before committing the performance to tape, in order to sound spontaneous, and some of the banter between takes appears on the finished album." -- this sentence seems out of chronological order here. I get the gist, but it's a bit jarring to go from a description of the session back in time to him inviting Klingman in the first place. Could this sentence be moved to after recruitment is complete?

Done. Don't see why not? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I delinked the news story for the Axl Rose quotation, as it seems to be a third party site cut-pasting articles from a range of news services. It seems unlikely that they have copyright permission to host all of this content. I also added italics back in since it's not clear if they were in the original or not--MOS:QUOTE allows for minor corrections to quotations without adding a "sic", so this should be okay either way.

Rolling Stone now put major interviews in back issues online. Rose's interview is one, and the quote is in there. I've tidied this citation up a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took out a "claims" per WP:WTW; just let me know if you object and we can discuss further.

Interesting. I would have said "claims" means "In Todd Rundgren's opinion, he was", while "he was" means "it is factually correct to say he was". Hence the former sounds more neutral than the latter, as it's explicitly attributing only one person's viewpoint. Does that make sense? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Claims" to me always has a faintly doubting connotation, as opposed to something like states or says. (The "was" here is part of the "states" ... "He has stated that he was...") I'd like to leave it this way for WP:WTW compliance, but it's a small point and I certainly won't send this to GAR if you revert it back after my pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Subsequent albums, beginning with the follow-up A Wizard, A True Star would see a radical shift away from straightforward three-minute pop." -- Is it possible to add a citation for this? This is probably commonly agreed, but also a bit interpretive.

I've cited an Allmusic review of A Wizard, A True Star which states "Anyone expecting the third record of Something/Anything?, filled with variations on "I Saw the Light" and "Hello It's Me," will be shocked by A Wizard," though I haven't used any direct quotations. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Messin' with the Kid" -- is it correct to have capitals for the "with the"? This isn't how the article for the song itself capitalizes it, but if the liner notes are different, I'm fine with going with those.

That is verbatim what is on the liner notes, but I would go with "with the" because MOS:CAPS and particularly MOS:CT suggests you should reformat titles to be consistent with Wikipedia in preference to what a record company decides. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Edward James Olmos really do backing vocals on this, or is this a mislink? -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody called "Edward Olmos" did, certainly, and his article suggests the "James" bit came later and he originally wanted a career in music that fits the timeframe of this album. I think there's enough there to suggest we're not building a Frankenstein. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough--there can't be that many Edward Olmoses in the entertainment industry. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great, that seems to take care of everything. Let me do a last source check to make sure you're not a mad hoaxster who made up this "Todd Rundgren" character and then this is ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This link probably needs to be removed also. Am I reading right that this was cut-pasted from another site? This guy seems unlikely to have obtained permission for this posting. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:34, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it to direct the reader to the original source. Just let me know if I've blundered in any way by doing so. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's okay. I think I only used that source to get a few quotations, and to not rely on one source (the remastered CD liner notes) for most facts. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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).
	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--thanks for the fast responses, and this quality article on an important album!

After a long wait, thanks for a very quick and positive review! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]