Talk:Washing Machine (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 14:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this one on. At first glance, this already looks like an excellent article, with just a few tweaks required here & there. I'll post my review here shortly. — sparklism ^hey! 14:34, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"Unlike previous Sonic Youth albums, Washing Machine was recorded at Easley Studios in Memphis, Tennessee and produced by John Siket and the band." This requires a bit of clarity; were no previous SY albums a) recorded at Easley Studios in Memphis, b) produced by John Siket, c) produced by the band or d) produced by John Siket and the band? It might just be easier to drop the first five words, leaving "Washing Machine was recorded at....." if it becomes too unwieldy to rewrite.

Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...including the 20-minute-long ballad "The Diamond Sea", which was seen as a challenge for a major label release." Why/how was this seen as a "challenge"? There had already been many other albums released on major labels with 20+ minute tracks on them. I see that this is sourced later in the article to the Stevie Chick book - what does the source actually say about this?

Actually now that I check the book, I'm not sure if the author means "The Diamond Sea" or "Elegy for All the Dead Rock Stars" from Psychic Hearts. What do you think? You can check it here --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I see what you mean! Ambiguous. I think he's referring to "The Diamond Sea", but it's hard to be sure. The more I think about it, the more I think we should omit this completely from the article, since a) we only have one source and b) that source is ambiguous. I just doesn't seem that important to me - what's your view on doing that? — sparklism ^hey! 19:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we should omit this because it is not very clear and it might be WP:OR. I added "which was described as a Neil Young-esque ballad" to make the lead a bit longer, though. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source anywhere that says it was the longest SY song to date? I think that might be of more interest to the reader (especially in the lead) than "Neil Young-esque ballad" (which is perfectly fine for the body of the article). — sparklism ^hey! 05:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you exclude their SYRs, yes it is their longest track. I used this source as a reference, but noted that they have longer tracks in their SYR releases. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The album features more open-ended pieces than its predecessors and contains some of the band's longest songs, including the 20-minute-long ballad "The Diamond Sea", which is considered the longest track on any Sonic Youth album, excluding Sonic Youth Recordings releases." We have the words 'longest', 'long' and 'longest' again in the same sentence. I think this whole thing should read something like "The album features more open-ended pieces than its predecessors and contains some of the band's longest songs, including the 20-minute ballad "The Diamond Sea", which is the lengthiest track to feature on any of Sonic Youth's studio albums." and drop the bit about SYR from the lead (as there are also longer b-sides etc). Then, further down the article, it is correct to mention the SYR thing. — sparklism ^hey! 19:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, though I've tweaked it slightly. — sparklism ^hey! 20:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

"Moore and Gordon also gave birth to their first child, Coco." I'm pretty sure that only Kim Gordon gave birth - would it be better to say "Moore and Gordon also had their first child"?

Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Gordon credited the new place for its relaxed atmosphere" - is the new place the studio? Was it a new studio, or just new to the band?

She was meaning Memphis. Clarified --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The song "The Diamond Sea" clocks in at 19:31 and runs approximately six minutes longer on the vinyl version of the album." Can we reformat the time for lucidity? (e.g. 'nineteen minutes and thirty-one seconds', 'nineteen and a half minutes' etc.) Also, 19:31 is on the CD version then, right?

Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points about the length of this...

Most of the discogs listings, this source and AllMusic have "The Diamond Sea" listed as 19:35, not 19:31. I was curious about this, so I dug my CD out (yes, I do own this album...) and put it in my computer - iTunes has it at 19:37 on my edition. I can't see 19:31 listed anywhere. In any case, I think we should say it is 19:35 since this is verifiable.

"...approximately six minutes longer on the vinyl version of the album." This isn't actually the case: see this image, which shows the label of the vinyl listing it at 19:36. The version that is six minutes longer is called "The Diamond Sea (LP Version-Alt. End)", running to 25:50, and was actually a track on the CD single. (Also, not the length of the radio edit seems to be 5:26, not 5:15.....)

All of this is very confusing! I'm sure we will get there eventually... — sparklism ^hey! 20:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... how weird. I own an old European CD version and the song clocks in at 19:31. In any case, I agree: we should list it as 19:35 since it is verifiable. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...approximately six minutes longer on the vinyl version of the album" - this still needs to be addressed, see above. — sparklism ^hey! 04:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the part of "approximately six minutes longer on the vinyl version of the album." Also, according to this source, the radio edit version is actually 5:15. What should we do? I think track durations depend on localizations/releases. Discogs references should also be avoided, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:39, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, discogs is a useful real-life reference but shouldn't be used here. This is no big deal really - we could say "five minutes", leave it out altogether, or leave it as it is. — sparklism ^hey! 19:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could still mention the longer version here though. How about something like: "Due to its long duration, the song was edited down to five minutes for release as a single that also included an alternative twenty-five minute version as an additional track."? — sparklism ^hey! 19:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Niwi3 (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics

"Trouser Press remarked that the album contains references to The Shangri-Las and The Byrds" - are these musical references or something else (e.g. lyrics)?

They are musical references. Clarified --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...its 19:31 minutes of duration..." feels a bit clumsy - perhaps this should be ..."its duration of 19:31 minutes..." (or 'nineteen and a half minutes' etc.)

Done --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...clocking in at..." seems a little informal for a GA (and a similar thing exists in the 'Background and recording' section also)

Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A radio edit version of the song clocking in at 5:15 was also released." How about "...and the song was edited down to five minutes and fifteen seconds for release as a single."

Sounds good. Replaced --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork and release

We should wikilink the first instance of Polaroid

Wikilinked --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does one get "..clearance via an MTV News bulletin"?

I have no idea as it is not explained in the source. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source, I think what it means is that they managed to contact the fans via MTV News, and subsequently got the clearance. I think we should reword this, something along the lines of "The band managed to contact them via an MTV News bulletin and subsequently received permission to use their photo." — sparklism ^hey! 19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded. Thanks for the suggestion --Niwi3 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of release formats - vinyl, CD etc. There are 18 versions of the album listed on Discogs.

Added vinyl, CD, and cassette formats --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"In Europe, the record was also released with a bonus disc containing four live songs." I think this was a CD version released in Germany only. Is there any information available on the recording etc. of those live tracks?

You are right, it was only released in Germany. I also added info about the live tracks, according to this source. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've simplified the text a little bit - hope that's OK. — sparklism ^hey! 19:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly fine. Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

Should we wikilink Stephen Thomas Erlewine?

Wikilinked. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"...Ranaldo and Moore's guitar playing and change tactics with every track..." doesn't quite make sense

Replaced with "Ranaldo and Moore's guitar interplay" --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of accolades, the album also made the NME EOY list for 1995 [1] which could perhaps get a mention

Added. Thank you for the link --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

"All music composed by Sonic Youth." should really be "All songs composed by Sonic Youth."

Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The liner notes say "addditional lyrics on Skip Tracer by Leah Singer", so that also needs a mention in this section I think

It is already mentioned in the music and lyrics section, but I think it is fair to mention it again. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Just a minor point: the CMJ cite journal reference does not mention the author, even though this is known (and the template should support it)

Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have another look when the nominator has had a chance to go through these points. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 15:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, really appreciated. I have addressed numerous issues you brought up. I will let you know when all is done. Cheers --Niwi3 (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have addressed all the issues. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:04, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Getting really close now - keep up the great work! :) — sparklism ^hey! 20:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You too, nice review :) --Niwi3 (talk) 21:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything. Passing this, well done :) — sparklism ^hey! 20:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]