Talk:Trust (Elvis Costello album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Trustelviscostello.jpg

Image:Trustelviscostello.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

===

"Commercially, none of the singles on Trust entered the charts: the first time this had happened since My Aim Is True, his debut album"

That's not true. "Clubland" charted at # 60 in the UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.152.94.132 (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Trust (Elvis Costello album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

I think this one has been waiting long enough. Let's get this review underway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few minor wording issues:

   • Around this time he also struck a friendship with fellow new wave band Squeeze – Is it correct to say he was friends with the band itself? Was it a working relationship, or did he form a friendship with one or more members?

   • Changed to working relationship

   • "Watch Your Step" was rush-released as a single – Is "rush-released" a common term in music marketing?

   • From my experience yes; it's usually used to refer to when a single or something else is quickly released to capitalize on the popularity of another popular thing. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   • labelling Bruce and Pete Thomas – I'm conflicted as to how this should be written. If there's no relation, then it might be better to label them as "Bruce Thomas and Pete Thomas", but that might still be considered redundant. I'll leave this one to you.

   • I agree I'm not sure how to handle this one either :\ – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   • I've also made a few minor grammar fixes of my own. Feel free to review them.

   And few other thoughts:

   • The cover artwork is a headshot of Costello that he described as an ironic nod to the title. – This might need a little more context with a mention that he was supposed to look untrustworthy in the artwork.

   • Fixed

   • The "Reissues" section is very small and might be better off if it's folded into the "Release" section or the "Aftermath and legacy" section.

   • Fixed

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   • Reference list is formatted and sources appear reliable. All claims appear to be sourced, well beyond what is required by the GA criteria. No apparent plagiarism. The article is a bit quote-heavy, but that's understandable, especially regarding reception.
   • Sources by Costello himself are used, which likely fall under WP:SELFSOURCE. They probably should not be used to describe the actions of people other than Costello himself. And when in doubt, attribute or use direct quotes. Many of the uses appear acceptable, but it's advisable to replace them with secondary sources where possible.

   • Most of the information for these Costello records, particularly from bios, actually come from Costello's in-depth liner notes for each album (and they are super helpful). I know those would technically count as WP:PRIMARY so I tried to mix in as many other WP:SECONDARY items as possible to balance. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   • I've added one more attribution for good measure, but with that I'm satisfied that they're sufficiently supported by secondary sources and are not being used inappropriately. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   All topics are broadly covered. There are a few things that might be worth looking at further, but nothing that will affect the review:

   • Their work ethics were different, which slowed progress. – It might be worth checking if there's more information on how their work ethics were different and how it affected progress.

   • Unfortunately from what I've checked there isn't much else depth that the sources go into – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   • Is there a reason why it was received so differently in the UK and the US?

   • No idea. This happens with a lot of albums actually – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   • Coverage of the thematic elements of the album is great. It bodes well for a potential Featured Article status in the future. A few examples of the "puns and double entendres" might be helpful, but my opinion is that it's better to have too few examples than too many. Maybe if there's one or two that received more attention than the others then it would be worth including. Again, just giving thoughts and it won't affect the review.

   Some possible instances of excessive detail and less relevant content:

   • What's the significance of Taking Liberties and Ten Bloody Marys & Ten How's Your Fathers, and how do they relate to Trust?

   • Removed. It was a simple case of not knowing when to stop when I was expanding. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:10, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   • After a short tour of Norway and Sweden, Costello and Béchirian produced Squeeze's East Side Story (1981) during the six weeks before Christmas 1980. – Is this relevant?

   • No it is not, removed

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   A few minor issues:

   • and praised Costello as one of the best musicians in modern music – I don't think this would be warranted unless it was the overwhelming opinion of virtually all critics, which is not the case. This paragraph in the lead should neutrally summarize the overall critical and popular reception.

   • Agreed, changed.

   • his absence led to poor shows – We shouldn't describe the shows as poor in wikivoice. Who thought the shows were poor? The band? Critics?

• Changed to "poorly received" is that better? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:46, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

1. • The atmosphere at DJM was similarly dreadful – "dreadful" seems too emotive. I would probably use "troubled" or "strained", but anything less emotive would work.

• Changed to 'problematic'

1. It's also worth keeping in mind that analysis shouldn't be weighted too heavily toward one particular critic or academic, but I think the article strikes a sufficient balance between Perone, Gouldstone, and occasional other individuals.

2. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues.

3. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   One copyrighted image with valid fair use rationale. Images have captions that describe context when appropriate.

4. Overall: The article is on its way to GA status, just a few things to look over. Placing the review on hold. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

   The updates are going well, all that needs to be addressed now are the last two bullet points under criterion 4. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   Looks good to me! Passing the article now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail:

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Elvis Costello and the Attractions were consistently intoxicated during recording of the album Trust, with Costello writing "This was easily the most drug-influenced record of my career"? Source: Thomson, Graeme (2004). Complicated Shadows: The Life and Music of Elvis Costello. Edinburgh: Canongate Books. ISBN 978-1-84195-796-8. Chapter 7. Costello, Elvis (2003). Trust (reissue) (Inset). Elvis Costello and the Attractions. US: Rhino Entertainment. R2 73909.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Guillermo Lasso
  • Comment: Feel free to take out the Costello quote if the hook feels too long.

Improved to Good Article status by Zmbro (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 21:37, 25 January 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Trust (Elvis Costello album), so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• I will take up this review soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Cited: Interesting:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Onegreatjoke and Zmbro: I'm approving this nomination. Earwig initially reported a high likelihood of plagiarism, but it turned out to be quotations, so we're all good there. I must say, however, that the hook would sound better as:

• ALT1: ... that Elvis Costello and the Attractions were consistently intoxicated during recording of the album Trust?

Let me know what you think. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Yeah take out the quote. Makes it way too long. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)