Talk:Trench (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I will be your Good Article reviewer! It's been a while since I completed a GAN review, so you'll have to excuse me, but I can't think of anything I'd rather review than Twenty One Pilots.

I'll be going through the article later this evening (UK time), so I should have findings for you by tomorrow morning. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 14:17, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in this - I've had some extra work commitments, and was busier with family engagements over the Easter weekend than I had anticipated, so I haven't had any time to sit down and finish reviewing the article. I should be able to finish this off on Saturday. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead section is short, consisting of three paragraphs that introduce the album and provide context on its composition, release, and reception. Any lists used are appropriate to the context (e.g. track listing, list of personnel, peak national chart positions), and used standard templates where appropriate. The fictional setting of the album is discussed appropriately, and the article is seen to be written mindfully of words to watch, with attributions supported by citations.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References are presented in the "References" section.

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyvio detector only returns hits on sourced quotes and track names.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
Attention is given to the background and concept of the album, the album release and its critical and commercial reception, the supporting tour, and details of tracks and personnel.

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Constructive editing is in a spirit of collaboration. Any disruptive editing occurs only from IP vandalism, and the page is now semi-protected for the next 6 months.
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Of the four images used, two images are CC-licensed, one is public domain, and one is a low-resolution copy under fair use for commentary.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images include album artwork (for identification), one of the subjects of the article, an artist who collaborated in the writing and production of the album, and the band at the named concert.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comment

To begin with, on first glance, this article is well-written and seems to meet most of the criteria. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the nominator and reviewer are not jumping on the gun here, as the album might receive more singles (last was released in late January), but a tour is still going on support of the album, new certifications, sells and perhaps more background and coverage on it might appear. It will be for sure nominated for several awards shows including Grammys. It strikes me as too much of a recent GA nomination, for now, the album has been out for seven months and it's already nominated for a GA. I don't want to start any discussion, just giving my honest opinion as there are no guidelines for such but we should be reasonable. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: I definitely understand your position, and I agree that it is quite soon after the album's release, but I think most of what we would expect from an album has already happened; most album reviews coincide with release, interviews on background come out along with promo at the same time, and the tour has an article of its own, so only really needs a summary here. I agree that there will probably be further certifications to come, but I would say that they are typically more quantifiable (coming from a select group of official bodies) and therefore less likely to cause controversy when added. The personal approach I'm taking is that if we have a better article before anything else needs adding (i.e. we make any changes that GA class would require), then it should make it easier to incorporate any new content at a higher standard. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 16:01, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, it is your call, whatever you think it is more appropriate. Be aware of the audio samples, as they need to be reduced to comply with WP:SAMPLE. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Where does this review stand? It's been well over three months since the "Comment" section was written, and no sign of any review. Sasuke Sarutobi, if you aren't prepared to review this in the very near future—maybe a deadline would be useful in establishing this?—perhaps we should try to find a new reviewer by putting up the "2ndopinion" status (though that hasn't been very effective of late), or just close this review. It looks like MarioSoulTruthFan's concerns that this is soon for an album to be nominated for GA may have merit; nominator EthanRossie2000 just added information about the album's sixth single within the past week. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's still my main issue with this. Singles keep coming which is a good thing and the album is not even a year old. On top of that, the reviewer sees to be MIA. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan and Sasuke Sarutobi: Hey folks. Just wanted to check in on how this review is progressing since there hasn't seem to been any progress in the past month. :) --Dom497 (talk) 02:38, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dom497, Sasuke Sarutobi hasn't edited on Wikipedia for over two months, and hasn't posted to this review in nearly five, so that would explain the lack of progress. Under the circumstances, I think we have to consider this review to have been abandoned; I have just put a "2ndopinion" status on the nomination, in the hopes that a new reviewer will show up and take over. However, I think it's incumbent upon nominator EthanRossie2000 to stop by—something they have not done since this review opened—and tell us where they think this stands. I note that MikeOwen made some significant sourcing changes in the past week, which could indicate that there were sourcing problems earlier that would have needed correcting in order for this to qualify as a GA, and a complete review may find other issues to be dealt with. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind to being the new reviewer of this article, but only if the nominator @EthanRossie2000: is around. Nevertheless, I still have some issues regarding the early nomination of the article, but I'm going to shut those down, trying to be an imparcial reviewer as usual. Moreover, if the nominator doesn't stop by, this nomination should be closed. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated note: I once nominated an album for GA on the day of its release. It passed just fine and has been a GA for nearly three years now. If you keep up with the singles as new information comes out, that shouldn't be a problem; if you don't, we do. Simple.

What is the problem holding this up, anyway? dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:09, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That GA has more information on its talk page to be added and it shouldn't have passed as it wasn't stable as new information could be added at any given point, and with information I don't mean singles. I'm talking about interviews, reviews, awards and everything else. What I do or don't do is none of your business. What do you mean by "we"? Btw next time you want to talk about something please ping me. The problem is this review has been open for 6 months, half an year, that's not normal. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to EthanRossie2000's talk page on September 20; their last Wikipedia edit was September 19, so they probably won't have seen it yet. One major holdup, DannyMusicEditor, is that nominator EthanRossie2000 has yet to post anything to this review page since it opened back in April. If EthanRossie2000 doesn't engage—and I hope they do—then there's not much point in resuming the review with a new reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: His engagement isn't a problem to the article's content. I want to know exactly what needs changed in here and what's against the GA criteria that needs fixed. It won't matter if he doesn't engage if someone can get the problems fixed. Hell, that someone could even be me. Think teamwork, right? dannymusiceditor ^oops 20:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'd like to extend my apologies for it being left for so long. Between technical issues with my laptop and workloads at work cranking up to the point that I was burning out, I had no energy to even think about what I was neglecting (and when I did think about it, a mix of optimism and embarrassment kept me putting it off). I have a new laptop running now and have dealt with the burnout issue, so I'll be back from my wiki hiatus to resume the review or assist (whichever you think would be best).

With regards to the outstanding parts of the GA review; the next item on my list was a line review, which would have covered prose/spelling/grammar (1A), reliability of sources and NOR (2B and 2C), and neutrality (4). This had been complicated by trying to source a personnel roster that was more reliable than AllMusic (especially for the question as to whether or not Dun provided any vocals), but I hadn't been able to find any verification, even in the liner notes from the CD — aside from this, the Critical Reception section feels like it needs a bit of a polish as well.

I can tell in hindsight though that my main issue was that I was attempting to address issues before recording them, so that's the first thing I'll be doing if others are happy for me to continue. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 00:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasuke Sarutobi: I tried to give the critical reception bit a polish this evening by the way. mike•owen ^discuss 20:26, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sasuke Sarutobi and EthanRossie2000: Sasukes last edit was to this page above and EthanRossie is back editing and has not once responded to this page despite being asked to do so with a message at their talk page. I am thinking that unless another two editors watching this page steps forward (one to review and one to respond) then we close this as abandoned by both the reviewer and nominator. It will be "not listed", but obviously someone can nominate it again in the future. AIRcorn (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn, Sasuke Sarutobi, and EthanRossie2000: Unless the nominator states that he is available to address comments, I would be happy to respond to any in a GA review, since I have written a large percentage of it and know its contents quite comprehensively. mike•owen ^discuss 21:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn and MikeOwen: If Mike is happy to take over working on the article, I'll take over reviewing. Kingsif (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

Ok, @MikeOwen:, I'll review the criteria left for a second opinion: good prose, sourcing and no OR, and neutrality.

Sources all reliable, all work Pass
A few things don't appear to have a citation, has their ref been lost in a restructure, perhaps?
- It also debuted at number one in New Zealand, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic and the Netherlands, and was also the band's first number-one album in these countries.
  - I couldn't find something for them being their first number one for this sentence, so I removed that bit and added sources for the number one statements. mike•owen ^discuss 11:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This site consisted of a series of cryptic teasers centered around Dema.
  - The sentence before this is cited to the website, which I don't think can be considered a source for fans finding said website
    - Fixed. mike•owen ^discuss 11:21, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Needs attention
Needs a mention of Tyler Joseph's full name in the prose of Background & production; it just refers to him as Joseph
- Fixed. mike•owen ^discuss 11:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few grammar/phrasing tweaks, there's probably a few more commas you could add, but it looks solid style-wise.
Looking at Similarly, Rolling Stone's Christopher Weingarten noted the record's "more cohesive sound and feel" and more mature songwriting and production than on Blurryface, stating that the abundance of genres and ideas found on the band's previous album had "coalesced into a smarter, more mature whole."
- It doesn't seem like Weingarten is referring to the "previous" album with the last statement; if he is, though, the sentence isn't really cohesive and the two views should be split.
  - I reworded and reversed the two statements it to make it a little more divided, but I think that the "coalesced into a smarter, more mature whole" does call back to the statements in the previous paragraph in his article, since he described the band's style on Blurryface, and then brings into the first sentence of his second paragraph. mike•owen ^discuss 11:37, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Ah, my mistake, actually! I just re-read the original. I'd assumed that the "coalesced" part was writing about how Trench had improved in those areas on Blurryface, that it was another comparison. Sorry about that! Of course, the new phrasing makes this clearer, too Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These are all the prose/style comments I can find. Besides these, should be good. Needs attention
If there's no sources about cultural influence/popular response to warrant any additional sections, this looks great.
All neutral and no OR evident Pass
Kingsif (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since that's all I could see, the article's great, well done! Kingsif (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]