Talk:Trust (Elvis Costello album)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2023 (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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 16:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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
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)[reply]

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'

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.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues.
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.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Looks good to me! Passing the article now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.