Talk:This Year's Model/GA1

GA Review

Passed BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:05, 18 June 2022 (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) 12:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Happy to discuss, or be challenged on, any of my review comments. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check - I reviewed matches over 5% on Earwig's Copyvio Detector. All are either properly sourced quotes, song titles, or common phrases.
Images: The Spanish Model rationale usage rationale may need a slight tweak (as it's not ""at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question")

Fixed

Sources

Ref 4 (LP sleeve notes) shows me (but won't show most readers) an error message due to the use of "others". Optional to fix.

I find that always happens with cite av media notes for some reason. I've never been able to fix it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some refs not in order, e.g. "[5][10][6]" - to be reviewed after any other amendments.

I'll come back after everything else is set – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I note that uDiscoverMusic is not an independent source. Most uses of it are fine, but is there an alternative source for "Spanish Model marked the first instance of an artist reinterpreting of their own work, using the original backing tracks, in a different language"?

If there's no independent source, I'd suggest removing this. It's a bit of a niche claim. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

ISBNs could be put into a consistent format, e.g. by using Hyphenator

That is super helpful. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes rocklistmusic.co.uk a reliable source? (The rocklist.net sources seem to redirect here; could update them if the source is retained) https://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/mailto.htm has "Please remember I DO NOT compile these lists, I am just the messenger! "

I really just have the urls there as support as I really have no way of obtaining these best-of lists and whatnot. I accessed those through acclaimed music and got to rocklist through there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NME. Sounds list can be sourced to the December 30, 1978 issue, page 12. Only Record Mirror list I've found so far is based on sales and has the album at 39 in "Top 50 Albums of the Year" (issue dated 30 December 1978). Any idea what date the issue with the list is from? (It just so happens I was trawling through 1978 magazines in the British Library looking for stuff on Street-Legal last week.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the NME one! Didn't know they had those. Figures they'd put Springsteen's Darkness as number one. Also updated the Sounds one. Not sure about the date, would world radio history have the Record Mirror one? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, the World Radio history site is an interesting find. The chart I mentioned is here, and the one we wanted is in here. I was dubious about the use of the site but their Take Down Policy reassured me somewhat. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected the RM one. Can't find an online version of the RS list other than here. Low (David Bowie album) passed FAC with a rocklist.net link so I assume it'd be ok to use. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't share that confidence in the rocklists source. I'd much rather see it cited to "The Rolling Stone 1978 Critics' Awards", Rolling Stone, December 28, 1978, page 11. (as a bonus, here's a quote: "Elvis Costello's well-honed humor and a fit-to-be-tied attack combined to show that this overwrought little rocker has a steady aim.") I think the albumoftheyear.org list may be derived from reviews; it's not the same as the Critics' list. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose All done. Yeah that quote's pretty solid. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"solely on guitar" - is this in the sense of him only playing guitar, or not other guitarist?

Meaning he wanted himself as the only guitarist. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "only himself" or "solely himself" then? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done (first)

"who trained at the Royal College of Music with no prior band experience" - maybe something like "who had no prior band experience and had trained at the Royal College of Music"? Might read better with something like "was added" at the end, given the earlier "and finally"

Changed to your wording and 'last' instead of 'finally'

Is "donned" the right word? Doesn't seem right.

Yeah just removed that

"arrest and eventual signing to Columbia in the United States months later" maybe expand on this slightly as there's no obvious connecion between the arrest and his signing.

This is expanded more on Aim: "Partly due to the antics of Riviera, Costello was arrested and charged with obstruction, fined £5 and released from the police station in time for a gig later that evening.[1][2] The stunt attracted the attention of executive Greg Geller, who was integral in Costello's signing to Columbia in the United States months later.[3]" I wanted to keep this section brief and not a direct copy of Aim. How much more from that do you think is warranted here? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the sort of detail that we can't assume any preknowledge on the part of the reader for. I reckon a minor reword and adding text to the effect that "The stunt attracted the attention of executive Greg Geller, who was integral in Costello's signing to Columbia in the United States months later." is worth doing. (Maybe reword that line for variety). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Fixed.

"short five-week tour" - "short" seems redundant

Removed

"Per his management contract" - I think would be clearer with a name instead of "his"

Clarified

the "and Lowe" makes the later part "his American deal ... his final release" not work, I think. Maybe add Lowe leaving into a short separate sentence, or rework another way e.g. "with Lowe"?

Would adding a sentence at the end of the para work? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. What's there at the moment seems fine but the detail about Lowe is also relevant. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Put into a note as the more I read it back it interrupts flow if placed at the end. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:37, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"skyrocketed" - can this be reworded for tone?

What about 'grew'? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Could add a few words about the topic of "Radio Radio", which perhaps explains why it angered Michaels.

I'll have to go through the sources again (I can recall a few but don't have enough time atm). But I agree that would be beneficial. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick online search and couldn't find anything that said why the content angered Michaels, so don't spend too much time looking into this. (this was probably the closest I got to what I expected to find). BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a small description per the billboard source. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording

I think the first para here could do with a bit of copyediting. Nothing major.

How so? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:19, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"and began towards the end of 1977 and was" - and/and;

"Returning from My Aim Is True as producer was Lowe, who acted as, in Thomson's words, the "mad professor", pushing the band's energy further to attain the best performance" seems a little convoluted. How about something like "Lowe returned from My Aim Is True as producer, and, in Thomson's words, was the "mad professor", pushing the band's energy further to attain the best performance" "Acting as a foil to Lowe was engineer Roger Béchirian, whom Costello recalled was tasked with interpreting Lowe's commands," - maybe "Roger Béchirian, who Costello recalled was tasked with interpreting Lowe's commands, acted as a foil to Lowe." Take these as optional. Every time I have one of my articles reviewed I am reminded of my limitations as a prose writer. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the third is fine as is but I fixed the other two, – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"he excluded himself from his wife" - specify the "he"

My bad, fixed

"outside a fire escape" - Thomson says it was "on [a] hotel fire escape"

Clarified

"little overdubs" - is this in the sense of "hardly any overdubs"?

Pretty much

I thought so, but would be nice to see this reworded. ("few" rather than "little"?) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:35, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

The quote from Béchirian looked a bit short for a blockquite, but at 40 words it's right on the borderline from MOS:BLOCKQUOTE so is OK as is.

Music and lyrics

I think it would be better to remove "Meanwhile", and the "Indeed"s

Done

"the first verse is more contempt than the remaining verses" - doesn't quite read right.
"uses a telephone as comparisons to the narrator's companion" - not very clear.
In his memoir" - consider adding the year.

Done

"Incidentally" - I'm not sure why this word is here.

Removed

"it is running out not just for the girl, but for everyone" - too close to the source "'Time's running out' not just for her but for everyone"

Agreed. Can't figure a better way so we'll just ditch it

"An energetic attack on chic society, specifically one of its female members" - too close to the source: "energetic and enjoyable attack on chic society ... in particular one one of its female members"
"the song takes place in a nightclub" - Gouldstone only says "presumably some kind of nightclub"

"An energetic attack on a chic society's female member" what about that? or maybe "female chic society member"? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"female chic society member" seems OK. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"where its members have to inflate their egos as a desperate attempt to appear eloquent" - again too close to source "inflate their egos ... desperate attempt". "to appear eloquent" doesn't have the same meaning as the source's "make their lives seem meaningful"

I appreciate you having access to it, as sometimes in the heat of the moment I find don't paraphrase apparently. How would you reword this? I have an idea but I'm not sure how encyclopedic it would be. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commentaries about songs are really hard to summarise, I find, and I often fall back on direct quotes. Maybe something aong the lines "where its self-important members asprise to fit into high society, seeking purpose."? BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"in essence" seems like a slightly odd phrase to quote. Maybe "essentially"?

Done

I suggest adding a few words about what "Flip City" was.

Good idea, done

"including misogynistic ideals.[26]" - if this is from Gouldstone then the ref to his book should be here instead of the PopMatters one. Also, the PopMatters link doesn't point to the relevant page about that song. (https://www.popmatters.com/elvis-costello-this-years-model-2650329505.html/10 discusses "Living in Paradise".) I'm not sure about the phrase "misogynistic ideals" - will have another look after source is confirmed.

PM does state it: "it's also the most fluid representation of the author's misogynistic and covetous nature on the record". Yes I assumed that putting pages 1–12 would make that clear but if you think I should link to the relevant pages I could do that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that citing a chapter or limited page range rather than page number is generally fine per WP:FOOTQUOTE, but as this is a bit more controversial and relates to a living person, it would be in the spirit of WP:BLPSOURCES to include a page number here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you're saying but I basically used every page for that source so unless you want me to make a ref for every page I think it's perfectly fine here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I don't know of anything in policy that this actually breaches. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging and artwork

was off-centre" - deliberately or not? Following sentence makes it look deliberate (so does the later point about the "gimmick", but then the next one says it was "corrected". Maybe "was deliberately off-centre"?

Yes it was deliberate. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hinton compares it to The X-Files." - what's the source text for this? Seems a bit odd to compare it to something that came out about 15 years later.

"The back cover is like an outtake from The X-Files". I see your point. Ditch it? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the source, so fine to either retain or to remove. I'd tend toward remove but it's not a blocker. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deduced as "timely and appropriate" - "deduced" probably isn't the right word. "Timely and appropriate" seems odd without context.

I agree now that I re-read it. Removed it so it ends at 'labels'. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

Seems fine.

Critical reception

"examined Costello's emotional delivery as full of anger and grimace" - "examined" doesn't seem like the right word.

Changed to 'saw'

"dismissed This Year's Model as punk rock" - suggest rewording to avoid possible confusion with dismissing it as just punk rock.

Weird. Going back to Christgau he says "This is not punk rock." so now I'm confused why I wrote that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"finding the material "gall"" - I was told there may be issues with access to Rock's Backpages through Wikipedia library at the moment; do you have access to provide the original source relating to this?

Yep I currently got a subscription (so if you need anything don't hesitate to ask btw). "On This Year's Model, it's the petulant intensity that strikes you first. It's all gall." – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I was just checking it wasn't in the sense of "galling" really. (and thanks for the offer) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing & Personnel

Seem fine.

Spanish Model

"Cami introduced ideologies from her own career" doesn't seem to be a suitable summary of the source; it's more reflections than "ideologies" isn't it?

Changed to that

Thanks for your work on the article Zmbro. I found a few places where the article is a bit too close to the source text for comfort. I've noted a couple above, but will do another few checks after you've responded to my points above. Regards, 23:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BennyOnTheLoose Sorry it's taking me so long, I've now responded to all queries (I think). Still request some replies from you so we can move on. Really appreciate the review :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:03, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added a couple of further comments above. Looks like responses are pending on: the arrest/signing details; Lowe leaving Radar; 1st para of writing/recording edit; few (or equivalent) rather than little overdubs; "the first verse is more contempt". Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BennyOnTheLoose Alright sorry for the delay but I think I took care of everything (at least made responses to everything). Please let me know if we need to do anything else. Thanks for reviewing. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: I did a couple of additional spotchecks for the Thomson source, and no concerns. Looks like it's just the list reference, which I've hopefully helped with. (Not everyone's lucky enough to be able to pop to the British Library.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passing for GA. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:04, 18 June 2022 (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.