Talk:Studio (album)/GA1

GA Review

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: Ffranc (talk · contribs) 15:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on, the article looks good at a first glance. Expect a full review in one or two days. Ffranc (talk) 15:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, I'll begin work on the article tomorrow! VirreFriberg (talk) 16:24, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

General issues

I will go through more specific problems with the current article, but most issues are just individual cases of a few general problems that are repeated throughout the text.

• The biggest issue is that the article goes into too much unnecessary detail, failing criterion 3b: "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". You need to make the article more concise and cut down on coverage of other releases, Tages' touring life and everything else that isn't directly about the album.
• There is a lot of repetition. If you've explained something in one section, you rarely need to cover it again in a later section.
• Sometimes the article explains something and then repeats the same info in the form of a quotation. Quotations are mainly useful when they add something that can't be summarised in a straightforward way, which isn't always the case here. When you do include a quotation, always make clear who it comes from.
• The overuse of quotations often blurs the line between information and reception. Especially in Songs and composition, a lot of the current content is about reception. It doesn't belong in that section.
• It's almost always irrelevant when it was announced that something will happen. Just mention when it happened.
• There are many cases where you can improve the prose by making it more direct. Be restrictive with passive voice. Remove words like "however", "though" and "thus". Be less verbose in general: a lot of unnecessary words can be cut and many sentences can be merged, which will make the text more readable without the loss of any information.
• As a general rule, use the proper name the first time something is mentioned in a new paragraph ("Tages" instead of "the band", "Studio" instead of "the album"). It's OK to break this rule now and then, but not without a reason.
• Make sure to always use English genitive forms. Currently, "Tages" is consistently written without a genitive apostrophe. There are some other words that need to be fixed, such as "albums" instead of "album's" in the lead section (this is correct Swedish but not English).
• Avoid potentially loaded words when you summarise what someone says; see WP:SAYS.
• Get rid of contractions like "it's" and "wasn't", with the exception of quotations.

If you solve as much as you can from this list, I'll be more specific about the problems that remain and help out in fixing them. Ffranc (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

I fixed most of these issues (primarily the ones relating to the article's structure and grammar. Feel free to reach out with the more specific problems. VirreFriberg (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Specific issues, round 1

• The background section still has too much info that isn't needed to understand the rest of the article. It's relevant that Tages had used folk elements before, but this level of detail about other recordings doesn't belong here.
• Right know, the background section starts in 1967, then goes back to 1966, 1965 and finally 1963, which is confusing and counter-intuitive. Why not start at the earliest point and briefly summarise the parts that are relevant for Studio, roughly in chronological order?
• Link "psychedelia" to the appropriate article, as it can mean several things.
• The section on recording and production starts in a confusing way. It first talks about the album as a whole, but then switches to talk about how there was no plan for an album, just a single. I had to read most of the section to make sense of the beginning.
• Europafilm had additionally been Tages and Anders Henriksson's preferred studio, and they had been recording at it since "The One For You" in August 1965. Either remove this entirely or just mention that it had been their preferred studio since 1965, right after Europafilm is mentioned the first time.
  • Just remove it, it's not relevant.
• The folkpark tour is relevant to mention in one sentence but the details need to be cut. It's not part of the recording and production of Studio. You can keep the footnote but skip the info about the 1965 tour.
• Mention who Göran Brandels and Lennart Wrigholm are when they're first introduced.
• I don't see the relevance of Julgransplundring med Tages in the recording section. It's relevant that they got "Created by You" that way, but that is covered in Songs and composition. If you remove the mention from Recording and production, you can just add to Songs and composition that it was a Sveriges Television Christmas special.
• By the end of the tour, the band and Henriksson were given the opportunity to record at the EMI Studios (later Abbey Road Studios) in London, which was made possible by being on Parlophone's roster. The studio was booked for three days, on the 23 through the 25th of October, at which they cut two tracks, "Like a Woman" and "It's in a Dream". What does cut mean here, that they recorded the tracks? This is also a good example of the verbosity. You can edit this down to something like "The band recorded "Like a Woman" and "It's in a Dream" at EMI Studios in London from 23 to 25 October", if that is what it means. Could also be worth mentioning somewhere that EMI owned Parlophone. It is implied here and in the footnote about the Beatles but never made explicit.
  • By the end of the tour, the band and Henriksson were given the opportunity to record at the EMI Studios (later Abbey Road Studios) in London, which was made possible by being on Parlophone's roster, the label who owned the studio. Now it reads as if Parlophone owned EMI Studios in London, not as if EMI owned Parlophone.
• The recording sessions featured an unprecedented amount of session musicians... Unprecedented in what way? In Tages' career, in the history of the studio?
• Words like "with", "a", "for", "by" and "in" are written in lower case in titles. This is done correctly in the track listing but not always in the prose.
• The majority of the material on Studio composed by bassist Lagerberg and producer Henriksson was written and rehearsed during the late summer of 1967. A good example of passive voice in the article. It reads better if you change it to active voice, something like "Lagerberg and Henriksson wrote and rehearsed the majority of their contributions to Studio in the late summer of 1967".
• It's unclear if the songs were written in Sollentuna or Dalarna.
• The details about the duo's songwriting history don't belong in Songs and composition. If they're relevant enough, they belong in Background, but otherwise just mention where the songs were written or how they were inspired by Dalarna (which here refers to the province/region, not the county).
• It's Andres Lokko, not Anders, and his assessments belong in the reception section, not in Songs and composition.
• Kieron Tyler's text from 2010 is not independent from the subject, since it is in the booklet for the CD. It can be used for uncontroversial factual claims but not for value judgements like it is now.
• As with their previous two albums, Extra Extra and Contrast, Studio further showcases Tages experimenting with psychedelic sounds in the studio, including well known characteristics, such as backmasked electric guitar, a presence of the Leslie speaker, primarily used by lead guitarist Anders Töpel, along with reverberation and feedback that prevail on some of the albums tracks. These are not well-known characteristics unless you're already a Tages fan. Try to cut sentences like this up and rewrite them in a more straightforward way, appropriate for general readers.
  • Remove all unnecessary words and just name the techniques they used.
• Lyrically, Studio has been described as a mish-mash due to the large variety of topics the lyrics revolve around. They range from introspective ("It's My Life"), love ("Created By You") to whimsical ("I Left My Shoes At Home"). Just like previous albums by Tages, several of the songs have controversial lyrical topics which presented themselves with backlash in the Swedish press. This is repeated in the same section when it goes into each song. You don't need to say it twice in the article body.
• According to Brandels and Wrigholm, the absence of any lyrical theme was not uncommon in the Swedish music scene at the time, as most teenagers buying their records did not have any deeper grasp in the English language which meant that the band saw lyrics as an afterthought to the music. The double negation is confusing and you don't need to mention Brandels and Wrigholm here. Try to make it shorter and more clear.
• The song, which opens with a fade "into an orchasmic array of folk instruments before Tages themselves come in on their instruments", was meant to set the tone for the rest of the album. "It's My Life", which follows, "is the polar opposite" which bases its sound on a hard rock riff which complements the somewhat introspective lyrics by Lagerberg. You don't need these quotations, just write the same info in a simple and concise way.
• The vocal harmonies on the track are important, particularly during the song's chorus, with the backing and Lagerberg singing counter-melodies. It's unclear if this means that Lagerberg and the backing singers sang counter-melodies against each other, or if they sang the same counter-melody. Something like "The track has prominent vocal harmonies and a chorus where the backing vocalists sing in a counter-melody to Lagerberg's lead vocals" could work.
• "Like a Woman" is the first to feature another songwriter besides Lagerberg and Henriksson as it introduces rhythm guitarist Larsson as a songwriter. Larsson hasn't been introduced yet in the text, and it's not necessary to mention that it's the first song by another writer. Make it more concise, maybe ""Like a Woman" was written by Tages' rhythm guitarist Danne Larsson."
• Tyler likens the drum beat of the song to the Zombies "Care of Cell 44" (1967), which was also recorded at EMI. This is reception, and from a source that isn't independent from the subject, so it has to go.
• Wiremark believes that "Like a Woman" feature the group's arguably creepier lyrics, singing about how a "sixteen year old moves and loves like a woman". Just mention what the song is about here, use the part about it being creepy in the reception section.
  • Describe it without the quotation, it looks weird to quote someone quoting from the song.
• The song was personal to Blom, as the lyrics are directed towards older generations who got nothing better to do than complain on a television show. Not clear why this is personal. Either add why or just mention what it is about.
• "I Left My Shoes at Home" ... sees Tages according to Wiremark using the "silliest lyrics of their career", only challenged by their debut single "Sleep Little Girl". This is reception.
• Change "supplemented" to "accompanied" or "supported".
• Together with the later track "She's Having a Baby Now", "She Is A Man" is the album's most lyrically discussed song, as it revolves around transgenderism, which garnered comparisons to the Kinks single "Lola" (1970). Transgenderism is an anachronistic term, change it to cross-dressing in line with the source's "transvestiter". That the track is discussed belongs in the reception section, just write what it is about here.
  • Wrigholm 1991 doesn't say it's undefined and AllMusic says transvestite. Does Wiremark say something else? Otherwise, it's WP:OR, and trans woman is just as anachronistic as transgenderism. The subject here is a song from 1967, it's not credible that its writer would have thought in those terms.
• A group composition, it was largely written by Lagerberg but credited to the entire band as the creative process in the studio made them band creations, according to him. Can be shortened a bit and the grammar needs improvement. Try "It was largely written by Lagerberg but credited to the entire band because he thought the creative process in the studio made it a group composition".
• Wiremark identifies the song as the one which deviates the most from the material on Studio... You don't need to credit Wiremark for this, just say that it deviates and how.
• The flute, which appear during the instrumental breaks on the song gives "it a somewhat personal touch" according to Wiremark, something which also "elevates it". This is critical reception.
• "It's In a Dream", was the second song Tages recorded at EMI Studios in London. This is already mentioned in Recording and production.
• Lyrically, the song tackles peace through metaphors involving Robin Hood which seem somewhat distant during the choruses, where they are described as only existing in dreams. Try to make this read better. Right now, it technically says that the metaphors only exist in dreams.
• "She's Having a Baby Now" is undoubtedly Tages most lyrically discussed song... This belongs in the reception section.
• Lead vocalist Blom describes the lyrics as "socially pornographic, not pornographic in the way of pornography. It's when they go into a family disaster and they exploit it". The quotation looks weird because Blom wasn't talking directly about the song here. You can probably remove the quotation and just link the Wikipedia article about social pornography, or write your own very short summary of how Blom describes it.
  • Now it reads as if the song was a family disaster.
• "She's Having a Baby Now" was the only song on Studio released as a single, but failed to chart presumably due to the controversial lyrics. Doesn't belong in this section.

This is a selection from the first few sections, I'll continue to list more issues. Most of the remaining problems follow the same patterns, so you should be able to fix many on your own, if you get tired of waiting. Ffranc (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again!

I've been busy these past few days, and Wiki did not send out a notification about this new "specific issues" section which is why I didn't find out about it until today. The issues mention have been fixed, removed or rewritten as per the instructions. VirreFriberg (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for not pinging, will do that for the next batch of comments. Some of the issues have been resolved but some of the biggest remain. The background section is for example not more concise, which is the main problem with it. Ffranc (talk) 13:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, could you be more specific in the word concise? Thank you. VirreFriberg (talk) 17:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It has too many details about other things. Other releases can be mentioned when it's relevant for Studio, for example the info about how Tages needed a hit single to get to make another album (currently in the release section, would fit better under Background). But you need to limit it to info that actually says something about Studio. The genre developments are relevant as such, but the details about each album and single belong in articles about those releases, not here. Ffranc (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Specific issues, round 2

• Introduce Kjell Wiremark with some descriptor the first time he is mentioned.
• ...Ola and the Janglers album Pictures and Sounds... Missing genitive apostrophe
• ... which added to the artistic appeal of the album. This is reception, and probably too insignificant to bring up in the reception section.
• One of the photos in the inlay also depict Henriksson, which was added as he was considered to be an unofficial member of the band due to his involvement in their records and compositions. This can easily be shortened. Remove unnecessary words and the info that has been mentioned previously in the article. It should be "depicts", not "depict", since it's one photo.
• It also features a picture of a speleman, Hubert Westerman, who's photo was added as a nod and homage to the album's sound which was rooted in music from Dalarna. -> "It features a picture of the fiddler Hubert Westerman as a homage to Dalarna."
• The liner notes were written by either guitarist Töpel or journalist Hans Sidén, both of whom had contributed to them previously. Remove or rewrite the second clause.
• Make the opening of Release and commercial performance more chronological, and remove details about other releases. It's relevant that Studio relied on getting a hit, but the more precise chart performances of the other singles don't belong in this article.
  • The background info about needing a hit belongs in Background. You can repeat, in a minimal amount of words, that "Treat Her Like a Lady" was a hit when it says Studio was released soon after it. Change "cashing in" to something less informal.
• In June 1967, Parlophone released "She's Having a Baby Now" as their third single on that label, backed by "Sister's Got a Boyfriend" from Contrast. Does this mean that "Sister's Got a Boyfriend" was the B-side? If so, write that instead of "backed".
• Only a few days following the release of "Treat Her Like a Lady", Tages fan club issued a statement that Tages had "begun recording their album" which would be out by Christmas. It's irrelevant when it was announced. You can move the footnote about the Christmas market to the next sentence, which also mentions Christmas.
• Despite being considered as an album to release as Tages international breakthrough, Studio was upon original release only issued in Sweden and Denmark. The first clause is confusing. It's also one of several instances in this section where Tages needs a genitive apostrophe.
• According to Wrigholm, the commercial failure of the album was based on a few factors; it was relatively uncommercial compared to their previous records which alienated their teenage fans. Additionally, Tages were considered too "poppy" and for musical snobs who otherwise might have enjoyed the album, but refrained from doing so. The semi-colon is used incorrectly. You can switch to a colon and merge the sentences, or you can use periods and make it three sentences. Remove "additionally" in either case. There's an errant "and" in the last sentence.
  • It still reads poorly. The grammar doesn't add up and "musical snobs" is too informal.
• Blom became disappointed in the failure of the album, so much so that he too began feeling alienated with the music industry, stating that "Nobody knew how to manage a group, nobody knew anything about it", criticizing Parlophone for their failure to promote the album and the band's failure to crack the English music market. Shorten this and remove the quotation, which doesn't add any information.
  • On second thought, this is covered in Legacy where it belongs. If there is some detail here that needs to stay, merge it with the paragraph about Blom in Legacy, in a way that reads well as a whole.
• Write "Sveriges Television (SVT)" the first time it's mentioned, then just use SVT.
  • The first mention is in Background (and should not be in italics).
• Shorten the paragraph about Dalamania to maybe three or four sentences. Could start with something like "In a last-ditch effort to promote Studio, Parlophone and Tages got SVT to finance the half-hour television special Dalamania, produced by Peter Goldmann and shot on location in Dalarna and at Radiohuset in Stockholm."
  • Dalamania was aired on SVT's only national channel on 31 May 1968 which despite positive reviews did not increase sales for Studio. The grammar needs to be fixed. It technically says that it was SVT's channel that received positive reviews, not Dalmania.
• Miming -> lip-synching, if you keep that part.
  • You linked to the correct article, but it still says miming, which doesn't have this meaning in English.

VirreFriberg: Sorry if this comes off as grumpy or nitpicking. The article could use some copy editing, but that doesn't matter so much for GA. The things I bring up are where the article fails GA criteria, primarily 1a ("the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience") and 3b ("it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail"). These issues do need to be resolved. Ffranc (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc; I've revised the issues you've listed in this section now. Will most likely copy edit at some point during this week. Many thanks. VirreFriberg (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Specific issues, round 3

• Upon original release, albums were not considered as important as singles, and not many publications reviewed Studio. Reviews of the album was generally limited to teen magazines... This is contradicted by the rest of the section, which goes through the album's reception in major Swedish newspapers.
• You can merge many sentences about the reviews. Skip all quotations that contain plain information, only keep the ones that have nuances or flavour that would be lost otherwise.
• The review summaries become wordy and disjointed when you follow the structure of the original text too closely. Try to summarise the main points in a way that reads well in its own right.
• Change "idols" to maybe "role models" or "their favorite bands". Teen idol and pop idol are terms in English, but they're rarely used the way idol is used here in Swedish. This is a similar case to "mime" earlier. These English words don't always mean the same things as their Swedish cognates.
• You sometimes switch between singular and plural ("staff writers", "writer", "they"). Make it consistent (it's most likely one writer; "the critic" is often a useful term in these sections).
• Periods should be outside of quotation marks (one of several examples: "almost as excellent throughout." -> "almost as excellent throughout".)
• In the Retrospective assessment, write when the texts are from, when this info is available (AllMusic doesn't write this out, but the other sources do).
• Although he believes that Studio is "carefully arranged and produced", the songs found on the album "do not live up to their British influences". While he believes there are no bad tracks on the album, he does not single out specific songs for praise, writing that the album largely is composed "of approaches that were in fashion". The part about fashionable approaches belongs together with the part about British influences, not with the parts about how there are no bad tracks. This is a good example of how the text becomes disjointed because it follow the structure of the review too closely. The original text is structured in a way that gives it a good narrative flow, but when you lock yourself to that structure here, in a brief summary, it doesn't work as well. It's better if you group statements by what they're about, regardless of the order they appear in the source.
• Writing for Mojo magazine, Kieron Tyler describes Studio as a "groundbreaking riposte" to the Beatles Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, while further stating that the album "was Sweden's best pop album of the 1960s." Good examples of a sentence with several of the problems mentioned above. "Groundbreaking riposte" has some flavour to it, so it's a fine quotation, but you don't need to quote Tyler to say he thinks it's the best Swedish pop album of the 1960s. "The Beatles" needs a genitive apostrophe. "while further" is unnecessary. This is an example, there are similar sentences throughout the section and elsewhere in the article that you should be able to identify and improve.
  • You didn't need to remove that he thought it was the best Swedish pop album of the 60s. It's just unnecessary to use a quotation to say it. Just write that he called it that.
• Studio was the first release in a row of singles and albums by Tages which were met with "disastrous commercial, though superb critical" reception. Skip the quotation.
  • You only removed one quotation mark. Just present the information in a plain, neutral way.
• Turn Blom's departure and the renaming to Blond into its own paragraph, and remove the unnecessary "At the same time".
• It's confusing when it sounds like Studio was obscure because it was overshadowed by progg, but then rediscovered because of progg, where it was apparently a big deal. The way it's currently written, it doesn't add up very well.
• By then, the album was spreading through word of mouth and became a cult album amongst fans of 1960s pop music in Sweden. Unclear when "by then" refers to - the 80s or the 70s progg scene?
• Blom argues that the band should've recorded it a year later, as it was "a bit before 1969 and 1970 when groups in Sweden got money from the Government" through the Ministry of Culture. Skip the quotation.
  • You have to reword it too, not just remove the quoation marks. And I don't see how it fits into this paragraph - what does this potential source of funding in the 1960s have to do with becoming a cult album in the 1980s?
• In 1997, Swedish Musicians' Union magazine Topp 40 put Studio at a position of number 36 on their list of the best Swedish albums of all time. Similarly, popular magazine Sonic placed it 35th on their list of the 100 best original Swedish albums, where it was the only one by a Swedish pop band of the 1960s. This belongs in Retrospective assessment, not Legacy. Saying both "position" and "number" is repetitive, just use one of the words.
• Despite this, Studio would remain unissued in full until 1994, when it was released on their Fantasy Island compilation, which compiled all their later work "Despite this" is unnecessary. Change to the more direct "Studio remained unissued..." Change "their" to "Tages'" and merge the last two clauses to something like "Fantasy Island, a compilation of Tages' late works".
• The first dedicated re-release of the album came in 1998 when it was re-mastered and released on CD through EMI Records, a release which featured bonus tracks... Reword it in some way where it doesn't say "release" three times in the same sentence.
• ...compiled by Kieron Tyler who wanted the "rest of the world to experience Tages music". Skip this bit or change it to something short like "at the initiative of Tyler". Tyler is mentioned earlier in the article, so you don't need to repeat his first name.
• That CD contained the same bonus tracks as the 1998 one did. Probably unnecessary, but if kept can be merged with the preceding sentence.
• In 2015, it received its first vinyl re-issue for Record Store Day, and was released under the Parlophone brand, and was an exact replica of the 1967 LP. In 2017, Bear Family Records would also issue the album on vinyl, which featured a different layout compared to the original release. Get rid of the repetitive ", and" and the unnecessary "would also".

VirreFriberg: I've reviewed the last sections and begun to go through the previous parts again. I struck out some issues that have been fixed from the first two sections here, but left the ones that still need to be addressed. I've added a few comments where more needs to be done or new problems have emerged. Sorry that this is taking more time than I originally thought. The article and your research overall are impressive and most problems are minor, although some are repeated many times. Ffranc (talk) 15:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc! I've revised all the issues you commented on here. Apologies for any confusion or misinterpretation of your points, English isn't my native tongue. - VirreFriberg (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again Ffranc! Sorry for the late reply and revisions. I've now revised all points still present, though I suspect that some aspects are up to your interpretation, mostly relating to WP:Article Size. I moved a few sentences around to better fit the article chronologically, while two points remained;

• "Wrigholm 1991 doesn't say it's undefined and AllMusic says transvestite. Does Wiremark say something else? Otherwise, it's WP:OR, and trans woman is just as anachronistic as transgenderism. The subject here is a song from 1967, it's not credible that its writer would have thought in those terms."
  • This was my mistake. The source is found in Boken om Tages, where Brandels and Wrigholm write (quote unquote) "'She is a Man' handlar om en transkvinna [etc]" (which roughly translates to "'She is a Man' is about a trans woman". The mistake lied in me confusing the two sources (Wrigholm 1991 and Brandels & Wrigholm 2012).
• I moved the paragraph regarding Julgransplundring med Tages to the Songs & Composition section, by the "Created by You" paragraph
• The paragraph regarding related released ("She's Having a Baby", "Treat Her" etc) was moved to the general background.

Hopefully this should clear up some miscommunication. But if there's something more that you feel I haven't revised enough (once again, primarily relating to WP:Article Size and shortening of sentences), feel free to reach out. - VirreFriberg (talk) 17:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

VirreFriberg: I began to copy edit the article and fix minor things that don't matter much for GA. But the background section is still a mess. It contains way too much information about other releases, repeats itself and jumps back and forth in the chronology. I began to trim it down but it's better that you who are familiar with the sources do it.

Two other things that need to be addressed:

• I'm not good at image licenses, but I think you need to include something about the copyright status in the United States for the pictures that are tagged as in the public domain in Sweden. Unsure exactly what you need to add, but there may be similar Swedish magazine photos on Commons you can look at.
• The article contains both British and American language variations ("favour", "favorite"). You need to pick one and apply it consistently.

The article is close to GA but some of the basic problems I pointed out at the start remain. Ffranc (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi again @Ffranc, sorry for the late response.

I have now restructured the Background sections as much as I possibly could. It's as chronological as could be, starting in 1963 and ending in 1967. I think the copyright tags for the US in the images are correct, though I am of course not 100% certain, being unfamiliar with the American copyright laws. I decided on going with British English since it's the one (primarily) used in the Swedish curriculum. Unfortunately this has resulted in me using a combination of both English and American spelling which I understand could be strange and perhaps even insulting for a native speaker.

I removed the passive voice outside of quotes, and fixed the "proper name the first time something is mentioned in a new paragraph" point. Otherwise, most of these other pints were fixed once I dove into the sections regarding "specific issues." VirreFriberg (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

VirreFriberg: I copy edited the first few sections, but many of the problems remain, including the serious issue of using the album's booklet (Tyler 2010) for what essentially is critical reception. Please go through the rest of the article and make sure all issues have been resolved. I have not listed minor issues that don't matter for GA here; all points I have brought up are where I think the article fails a GA criterion. You need to address all of it, not just a selection. I fixed various issues in the first few sections, but if I give the same treatment to the entire article, I will be too involved to be able to finish the review. Ffranc (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc! I have fixed the issues at hand, using as little passive voice as I possibly could (outside of quotes). Quotes are now almost exclusively presented in the "Reception" section while I corrected the English genitive forms to the best of my grammatical ability. I genuinely don't know how to improve the article more without re-arranging it into unrecognizability.

I apologize for the delay and thank you for your patience. VirreFriberg (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Final stretch

VirreFriberg: I've been annoying in the review and hopefully it hasn't discouraged you. I've left maintenance tags at the only problems I can see that still prevent a promotion.

• The title of the song came as an accident after Lagerberg misread the title of the Rolling Stones' song "Have You Seen Your Mother, Baby, Standing in the Shadow?" (1966), which Henriksson found amusing enough to write a melody about. Now it reads as if the song is about Lagerberg's misreading. This can't be correct.
• Despite praising the production and recording, the critic was slightly disappointed in the inclusion of folk instruments, which are not as "advanced as classical [music] albums would have it". I don't fully understand this. What does it say in the original Swedish?
• The song was personal to Blom, who was fed up with his grandparents, as the lyrics are directed towards older generations who got nothing better to do than complain on a television show. It's unclear how this should be understood. I don't find anything about grandparents or TV in the source, only that the song bashes "the adult generation", without further comment.
• Add the year for Sonic's list (2013, according to the magazine's website).
• Musikon is a passion project and not a reliable source within the context of Wikipedia. You need to replace it.

Some additional things that I won't fail the article for, but would improve it:

• I still think you should mention what years the texts in Retrospective assessment are from.
• Reception sections read much better if you organise them more based on theme and don't follow the structure of the original review so closely.
• Consider adding |trans-title parameters to the Swedish-language sources, {{literal translation}} to Swedish titles in the prose, and the original Swedish versions of the translated quotations somewhere.

You don't have to do anything about the last three points, but the ones above need to be resolved. Ffranc (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc! The listed issues should be fixed now.

• In the first point, Henriksson thought that the misreading of title was amusing enough to base a melody around Lagerberg's erroneous title (which initially was "Have You Seen Your MOTHER Lately"). It's perhaps not formulated as good as it should've been. I've tried grammatically correcting it, though.
• The second point was my error, as I once again confused Wrigholm's 1991 article and Brandels & Wrigholm 2012. The book adds to the statement in the original sentence. (That Blom was fed up with his grandparents)
• Added the year, along with citing the magazine itself
• Replaced the Musikon source with an article from Aftonbladet.

Additionally, in the retrospective assesment section I added your suggestion about mentioning years of articles. I'll look over the other two bullet-points with time (when I have time, that is)

Thank you for the patience, and once again apologies for the delay in my response. VirreFriberg (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

There was one more point, where a critic said that folk instruments are not as "advanced as classical [music] albums would have it". I'm not sure how to understand this and can't access the source. Can you post the original Swedish quotation? Ffranc (talk) 09:51, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc: "Trots att Lars Samuelson och hans orkester är involverade i produktionen är arrangemangen av stråkkvartetterna och de folkliga musikinstrumenten på albumets spår mindre invecklade än de som används inom Barockens värld, exempelvis Sveriges Radios Orkester på 33-varvaren Symfoni Nr 2 som Kurt Atterberg mästerligt dirigerade."

Literal translation: "Although Lars Samuelson and his orchestra are involved in the production, the arrangements of the string quartets and the folk musical instruments on the album's tracks are less complicated than those used in the Baroque world, for example Sveriges Radios Orkester on the 33-RPM Symfoni No. 2 which Kurt Atterberg masterfully conducted." VirreFriberg (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like the review singles out the folk instruments then, but compares the arrangements in general (folk and orchestral) unfavourably to another record. You can try to make it match the source text better, or just remove it. Ffranc (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

@Ffranc: Changed it to "the critic was slightly disappointed in the string arrangement, comparing it unfavorably to a contemporary record by the Swedish Radio Symphony Orchestra." VirreFriberg (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

OK, very good. I can't find anything else to complain about. Everything has been resolved, well done! Ffranc (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

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.