Talk:Where You Go I Go Too/GA1

GA Review

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

Done

General space after first quotation marks need to be removed (2x " spacey psychedelic" and " motivic polyrhythmic patterns ...") Infobox there should be 10 reviews in the infobox tops Lead "spacey psychedelic" - should have a comma after "spacey" per the source Production -> change to Background and production? "However, Lindstrøm also felt he was unwisely incorporating his musical ideas into remixes instead of his own original works." - unnecessary words "Lindstrøm also felt he was unwisely incorporating musical ideas into remixes instead of original works." says the same "The culmination of these elements led him to begin experimenting ..." - too many unnecessary words for something that's clear "He began to experiment ..." says the same "The album's title track was a time-consuming project ..." - "album's" unnecessary, obvious "Lindstrøm himself" - "himself" unnecessary perhaps argue "was constructed with" instead of "consisted of over 70 layers", because the song still consists of the layers "he would listen to the song from the beginning" - needs explanation, why? "So I'll never gonna do it again." could use template {{sic}} to highlight that it's his error I fixed this. "found freedom" - vague and not in the source like that, one can simply state that he enjoyed the process because it allowed the songs to develop freely with a slow pace - reformulating also allows getting rid of the quotation, it's imo not necessary to include the whole explanation of drums anyway "great time-length" - "great" sounds weird/evaluating, use perhaps "extended" "There was some delays mixing the album during Spring time." - Beginning a sentence with "there", when "there" doesn't stand for anything, leads to wordy prose, how about "The album mixing was delayed during spring 2008." to add some clarity? "Though a common theme was not purposefully established for the album, ..." - can't find this in the source, where is that taken from? "I didn't have any particular visual images or anything else in mind when making the album." - Pitchfork interview -- Noj r (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) I can't find a reference to either travel or adventure in the second citation, the pitchfork interview, perhaps the allmusic review was meant? Yeah, that was the allmusic ref. -- Noj r (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) "... when experiencing the record" - perhaps listening to the record? experiencing sound like taken from an advertisement or as if the album was a substance "Lindstrøm himself has recommended people listen to the album while traveling." - the "himself" is unnecessary "his own travels" - "own" not necessary Shouldn't it be "The song titles ..."? it's a specific number and not a selection "purposefully" - "so" indicates a purpose, so is "purposefully" necessary? Musical style and influences Audio file description repeats material from before, should be reformulated to describe the sound file and fit it into context Since I removed the part about the drums, can the caption stay the way it is? -- Noj r (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) See below. "composed of only three tracks" - why not let the fact that it's three speak for itself and remove the "only", or source that this is remarkable "Despite this, the album plays seamlessly in between songs." - very unclear, seamlessly can mean uninterrupted, when I first read it I thought the songs flow from one to another without interruption, please reword more clearly that tracks start minimalistic and each is "developing its own independent musical traits" is not in the source, the source even refutes minimalism The tracks do get more complex as they grow, but they really do start minimalistic (e.g. slow and gradual like the ref says). -- Noj r (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) The source talks about the transitions between songs there, I fixed this. "motivic polyrhythmic patterns, melodic riffs, [and] arpeggiator settings" - per MOS:QUOTE Wikipedia avoids linking from within quotes, so the links should be removed "... others remain insensible ..." the source says "almost", and the whole sentence is stated as matter of fact but it's the opinion of the The Guardian, why not write "According to The Guardian ..." "Some critics have noted the album conjures the feeling of a journey;[14][1]" - multiple footnotes should be listed in order, the semicolon should be a full stop it's 1970s and 1980s or 70s and 80s, but not "70's and 80's" "spacey psychedelic" - should have a comma after "spacey" per the source "The music itself is electronic, characterized by synthesized melodies, 4/4 beats, and ambient passages." - needs a citation, the Pitchfork interview says it's a "combination of digital and analog, live and programmed" I guess the cite is "With its shimmering, strobing synthesizer melodies, dizzy layering, and measured rhythmic pulse." - that's not a 4/4 or four-to-the-floor citation; if the sources don't say more then no original research should be added I was trying to cheat. Its kinda frustrating when there is a distinct 4/4 beat and nobody talks about, but I finally found a source that mentioned it. -- Noj r (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC) "the Beach Boys, the Eagles, and Kirsty MacColl" can't find that in given source Perhaps I just don't see it, could you copy/paste the sentence from the source so I do? Thanks. I tend to go back to everything from Pet Sounds to “Hotel California” to even stuff like, do you know Kirsty MacColl? -- Dusted Interview. Sorry, I forgot to show you that. -- Noj r (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Critical reception -> change to Reception? charts are not by critics there is no comparison to the Grammy Awards in the source, it's only Google Translator that gives out Norwegian Grammy for Spellemann - the source needs to be replaced I don't see polarization mentioned in the Yahoo! Music source and I'm not sure the text makes that strong a contrast - using only the quotes is clearer imo I thought it was pretty clear "for some ... for others" there is a distinct polarization drawn by the critic. -- Noj r (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Alright. "Despite suffering from A, X believed B" makes it seem like X mentions A and B in direct connection, but it doesn't and should be reworded "... for its entire length" - sentence needs a full stop "At year's end" - redundant, sentence says the same without it "URB" needs to be italicized "wrote favorably about 'Grand Ideas' and made favorable comparisons" - favorrable doubled, the second could be removed imo "... as blissful and bemused as the vehemently unpretentious shot of Lindstrøm." - perhaps add "[cover]" before "shot" to make it more clear? Charts Wikipedia doesn't track chart movement in chart tables, only the peak should be included Allmusic lists a special edition, that should be mentioned References perhaps alphabetize categories? I have made changes per your comments. I have left some comments above. Please tell me if you have more concerns, or outstanding ones I have not fully addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks -- Noj r (talk) 00:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC) Good work so far. I left standing what I think still needs to be fixed, it's not much. Hekerui (talk) 15:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC) Ok, I think I've got them fixed. Is there anything else I can do? -- Noj r (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Passed. Hekerui (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)