Talk:Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk/GA1

GA Review

Passed. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:42, 12 February 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.

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

Reviewer: BennyOnTheLoose (talk · contribs) 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Article has benefited from a copy edit by Baffle gab1978 of the GOCE.
	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).	Two uses of Robert Rodriguez's personal site as a reference are appropriate for the material supported. Film School Rejects has been discussed at RSN and seems fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	I reiewed the tops few matches found using Earwig's Copyvio Detector and had no concerns. Matches are titles, attributed quotes, and phrases like "number one on the Billboard" that are Ok per WP:LIMITED. No issues found during spot checks.
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.	I looked over the edit history back to June 2023, when the article was massively expanded, and saw no evidence of edit wars.
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.	FUR for the album cover is appropriate. The other image is CC.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are relevant. Captions are fine. ALT text is also provided.
	7. Overall assessment.

I'm happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes theforce.net a relible source? Having looked at their About Us] page, I'm on the fence as to whether it is.
What makes disco-disco.com a reliable source? Appears to be a fan site.

Both of these are fine per WP:ABOUTSELF as they're interviews with Meco himself. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that WP:ABOUTSELF applies. It says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves..." and neither site is published by Meco. However, looking into theforce.net a bit more, it does have editorial oversight and seems a reasonable source for the material cited. I think disco-disco is OK per WP:SPS as the author is published in the field, in Disco: An Encyclopedic Guide to the Cover Art of Disco Records (2014). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "Meco was a fan of science fiction; he read novels during his high-school years and had seen every film in that genre" - the source has "he attended every sci-fi film release without prejudice" which is a bit weaker, and a claim that Meco had seen every film in that genre seems questionable. I think this should be reworded.

I've changed this to "various films in that genre". MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "Meco contacted the music publishing department of 20th Century Fox Records and persuaded the receptionist to give him a copy of the score" - no issues.
Spot check on "Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk was issued in July 1977 through Millennium Records" - page is 20, not 15, and I don't think it verifies "July 1977", unless I'm missing something. (There's a surprising amount of Star Wars related music coverage in this issue!) The Stereogum source has "they released it on the album Star Wars And Other Galactic Funk in the fall of 1977."

I've changed this to summer 1977 per the Hip-O CD liner notes. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "Meco got the idea of making a continuous medley from Tom Moulton, who used the idea on Gloria Gaynor's album Never Can Say Goodbye" - see below for my question above about whether this is a suitable source. What part of the source supports this; I wasn't clear on that from a quick read-through.

Q: "What about Tom Moulton... He was brought in to work on both the Don Downing and Gloria albums, and in the Gloria album he segued all the songs together. This was the first time anyone had done something like that..."

Meco: "And it was all his idea."

...

Q: "Was this idea of Tom's an inspiration for you to do the same with the Star Wars album?"

Meco: "Well, at that point it was very common for people to have whole sides of an album without a break. ... So, when I went and segued Star Wars, I always thought of Tom."

I've re-worded it since he's not directly referring to Never Can Say Goodbye there. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check on "RCA Records planned a 12-week promotional campaign for Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk that included a £10,000, 30-second advertisement that was expected to be shown in the cinemas that screened Star Wars." - no issues.
Spot check on "Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk sold a million copies, surpassing sales of the Star Wars soundtrack" - no issues.
Spot check on "Williams sent Meco a plaque bearing the artwork of Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk and note saying; "Dear Meco: You're my Grammy winner", thanking him for his iteration of the theme" - supported by the source, but see my question above.
Spot check on "Star Wars creator George Lucas officially sanctioned Christmas in the Stars, and allowed the use of sound effects from the films and C-3PO performing vocals on one track" - no issues.

Recording: "assembled the Cantina section" - might be useful to explain this a bit at the first mention, as general readers might not know what it refers to.

I've piped this to Mos Eisley#Music. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Composition: "idiom of the time". Star Wars and Other Galactic Funk is split into two sides of music." I don't think that WP:INTEXT requires an additonal (repeat) citation after of the time". but IMO it would be better to add one after any direct quote. Take this suggestion as an optional one.

Added. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Composition: "the saxophone parts had a "really high, funny" sound." - I suggest attributing this opinion.

Added. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath and legacy: "Guinness World Records lists it as the best-selling instrumental single and the only instrumental single to achieve platinum certification by the RIAA" - I suggest qualifying this with something like "As of February 20234..." for future-proofing. Is it worth adding this into the lead? Seems pretty significant to me.

The Guinness source doesn't give a date; added to lead. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe update the access date; IMO this is adequate, espcially if an archive is available. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated now. MusicforthePeople (talk) 09:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article, great job, MusicforthePeople! I was aware of the single, but had no idea that the album existed and was so successful. As most of the spot checks were fine and the article has already had a good copy-edit, I found very little to say.

@BennyOnTheLoose: I was honestly surprised at how much material there was for the album; I initially thought maybe Start/barely C, never mind GA. I've left comments above. MusicforthePeople (talk) 00:01, 11 February 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.