Jump to content

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Desolate North/1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Desolate North

[edit]
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Kept. All of the reviewer notes have been addressed. — Retrohead (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons for delisting:

  • The prose in the "Reception" is unclear, and a questionmark is not a rating.
  • The article doesn't have information about the personnel.
  • The prose is confusing at some parts: "Maybe six or so copies of Ashen were sent out to various people" (what does this mean?), "as everything was recorded and played by Anderson" (what is everything in this context?), and etc.
  • The infobox is not properly filled; the duration field is empty, must be an exact release date and a producer (certainly can't be "none").
  • Infobox has no information of the producer. It is just mentioned as none.
  • Ashen and Bindrune Recordings are linked multiple times even though there pages don't exist.
  • Prose should be better written.
  • Reception section is really poor and needs a re-write probably. The box includes Allmusic ratings but only ? from pitchfork media and decibal magazine. While the content in the section mentions no significant reviewer. The name of reviewer should be mentioned instead of "One reviewer".
  • Tracklist has no details of personnel and the article provides no information related to personnel throughout.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you people? Would the polite thing to do if you're initiating this sort of process be to notify the article's author? Yeah, probably. Equally, if I was to block one of you people, I would probably notify you. Why don't you start again, and behave like a minimally intelligent human being? J Milburn (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Well its correct that the author should have been notified but on reading the article what makes you feel that the article deserves a good article status. Instead of pointing out the mistake done (probably the nominator didn't remember) you could have notified the author and major contributor. I don't mean to offend you but that would have been better. The GA status must not be thrown away at any article.Abhinav0908 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author has a week to complete the notes.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

First off, this article was written years ago when standards were generally a little lower, so it's inevitable that, reading today, problems will be found. I appreciate that this is no excuse, and I'm happy to fix issues identified.

  • I have copyedited the article, including the reception section and other sections specifically mentioned.
  • There is no personnel section as Tanner Anderson, Celestiial's one member, literally did everything. This is explained in the recording section- it is obviously not the case that "the article provides no information related to personnel throughout".
  • I have expanded the infobox as requested.
  • I have left redlinks in the article, as there is nothing wrong with redlinks. I have removed the badly formatted references, though I appreciate that formatting isn't perfect. I can fix others if you think there are serious problems.

If there are other problems which you feel need to be urgently fixed, please list them here and I will deal with them. J Milburn (talk) 09:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that the criteria were lower back then, but the fact that the article didn't receive a proper review remains. I still stand by my opinion that this article isn't a GA, regarding it's inconsistent reference formatting (why so cites in the track listing?) and prose comprehensiveness.--Retrohead (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide concrete examples of the inconsistent formatting and what is lacking from the prose? I really can't do anything about it unless you tell me what the problem is. The citations look OK to me, and it's not a GA requirement that they are perfect. (I've reworked the tracklisting.) J Milburn (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here are things to address:
  • Remove or correct all the redlinks per WP:STABLE (these are found in the lead and infobox
  • Honestly, it doesn't matter what that page says (and the passage doesn't even make grammatical sense). It is a rejected idea; not a policy or even guideline. WP:REDLINK is our actual guideline on redlinks. Many, many featured articles have redlinks, and that's just fine. I've never understood the opposition to redlinks- in years gone by, they were loved, because they encourage encyclopedia-building, but now people (falsely) seem to believe that they are a bad thing. J Milburn (talk) 15:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's your view, that's fine, but it is explicitly not the view of the Wikipedia community, which is explained at WP:REDLINK. When we're writing, we should act in accordance with guidelines unless we have a good reason not to. "I do not like the guideline" is not a good reason. J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The music is extremely slow"..... I don't think everyone is going to automatically know what this is supposed to mean unless you include things like "slow rhythm" or "slow instrumentals"
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, a ref shouldn't be used more than once in a row per paragraph (refs#1 and #3 have this issue in "release" section, and it happens again with ref#1 in "Imagery" section
  • Expand the "reception" section by including more reviewers in the score box, and by providing more names of reviewers.
  • Replace or remove refs#15, #18, and #19 as they are dead
  • I have removed/replaced them, but I note that, per WP:DEADLINK, this is not strictly necessary.
  • Should be more consistent now.
Best of luck getting this back up to GA quality. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've addressed all of your comments. J Milburn (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I should note: When using multiple refs from the same source (i.e. multiple links to AllMusic), the work/publisher should only be linked in the first ref that uses them per WP:OVERLINK. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK does not say that- quite the opposite, in fact. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." J Milburn (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Encyclopaedia Metallum and Handmade Birds are not reliable sources
    • Encyclopedia Metallum is used only for the track lengths. I could take them from a commercial source if preferred, but linking to shops is generally looked down upon. Handmade Birds is the record label which re-released the album, and is linked to only because of that (and because AllMusic mistakenly calls the label "Hand Made Birds"). I rely on neither source for anything close to controversial. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The related Wikiproject clearly states that those "should never be used as sources"→Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid. If you think that Encyclopaedia Metallum should be used, initiate a discussion to be removed from there.--Retrohead (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can remove Encyclopedia Metallum if you like, but that'll just leave the track times without a reference. Is it something that needs a reference? No, probably not. What do you want me to do? J Milburn (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a primary source for the tracklisting and replaced Encyclopedia Metallum. J Milburn (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well a lot of work has been done on the article through this discussion. I would also suggest removal of dead links as wikipedia is read by millions of people and most of the readers are not its users or interested in editing. So, as the redlinks lead to nothing this would only reduce the quality of the page for a general reader. The deadlinks should be taken care of too. Otherwise most of the problems are addressed. All the best.Abhinav0908 (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm frustrated that I have to repeat this, but here goes- WP:DEADLINK and WP:REDLINK are both accepted guidelines. The removal of redlinks and deadlinks is not required, and the removal of redlinks can actually be damaging. If you disagree with the guidelines, take it up on the village pump, but please do not ask me to do things which are against established guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question: What is the purpose of the photo? Is it part of the booklet or something? How can a picture of bark demonstrate the band's natural imagery? Where is the band pictured?--Retrohead (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a publicity photo used by Celestiial. Anonymity is important for Anderson- he sent me that picture to use as a picture "of" the band. I suppose the feeling is that a hand holding bark gives a better impression of what Celestiial is "about" than another moody shot under a bridge! J Milburn (talk) 16:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn, I don't know what makes you think that this article is on level with the rest of the GAs, but since it wouldn't be moral of me to close the GAR myself, I let someone else uninvolved in the discussion to do that. Hope you're not still irritated by the minor misunderstanding with me.--Retrohead (talk) 16:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you still feel that there's a problem, please tell me what it is and I'll do what I can to fix the article. In every case, I've changed the article or explained why I am not going to do with reference to guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One other comment: It says "various" for the time it was recorded. If known, I would provide specific date ranges for recording sessions (years and months or simply years will suffice). XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Various" refers to the locations- I've clarified that it was recorded in 2005. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:PLACE, you must explain what various means. Leaving it like that is simply not suitable for the infobox. Either clarify it, or omit it. "Various" can be anywhere.--Retrohead (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox currently reads "Multiple locations in 2005". Could you please quote the part of the guideline you feel shows the wrongness of this? You'll have to excuse me if I'm sick of being hit over the head with WP:IRRELEVANTCAPITALS. J Milburn (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "multiple locations" can be ambiguous as they don't tell much about where they were recorded. The lead also seems to consist of three stub-ish paragraphs, maybe merge them into two large ones if not expand. In fact, there's lots of paragraphs that seem to be stubbish. If they can't be expanded to more complete paragraphs, merge them to make larger ones. Any more reviews available? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 11:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't give any more information about the recording locations without saying more than is appropriate to give in an infobox. A stub is a very short article, not a short paragraph, and I'm not going to artificially merge paragraphs; that's just bad writing. I have rewritten the lead. Do you want more reviews, or more from the reviews I've already cited? J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both more reviews and more detail from them would be quite nice. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Various places where? In Denmark? On Mars?--Retrohead (talk) 21:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There you go. I am completely bored of this stuff, now. I have changed the infobox to read "2004-5, United States". Any more specific will drift into OR or too much information for an infobox. J Milburn (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A brief example.--Retrohead (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doing that, it looks ridiculous. I am not interested in discussing this issue any further. If you have any real comments about why you feel that this article needs to be demoted from GA status, please list them below. If you want to continue to bicker about minutiae and misrepresent policies/guidelines, go away. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Desolate_North/1&oldid=1084310805"