Wikipedia:Peer review/Stereolab/archive1

Stereolab

Recently rewrote this article about the alternative music band Stereolab. I've scoured other modern music FA's like The Smashing Pumpkins and Kate Bush to determine what's expected here, and tried to follow their style. I think it's FA quality now. - Merzbow 08:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good so far. Most of my comments are minor. There are some prose issue, but I can deal with them myself. Here's the things for you to address; feel free to strike them out when you take care of them:

Rearrange the lead section. Basic information first; mention the band's main genre (rock, alternative rock, or indie rock, depending on how specific you want to get) in the first sentence, and the formation date and who's in the band (or in this case, who formed the band or who's been in it longest) pretty quickly thereafter. Follow that with the overview of their sound, then move the sentences about their influences and the coining of the post-rock term below that.

Reorganized the lead per these suggestions - Merzbow 04:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You don't need to list the member's birthdates in the band article.~~
~~Why are their record labels in quotes?~~
~~Retitle some of the subsections in the History section to be more netural. Titles like "Evolution" aren't subjective enough.~~

Decided just to use the bare years like in Kate Bush. - Merzbow 00:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Make sure citations come after punctucation marks.~~
Maybe it's just me, but "The Groop Play Chord X" seems to be one of their better-known (or at least most frequently mentioned) songs, so it might be worth uploading a sample of that. Totally up to you, though.

Explained below. - Merzbow 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure the dating in the article itself follows the conventions of whatever type of English you're using for the article (which should probably be British English, since this is a UK-based band the members of which are predominantly British). Date formatting like "2002-12-09" is for footnotes; for the prose, write "December 9, 2002" (American English) or "9 December 2002" (British English).
You don't need to link items repeatedly (ie. Mary Hansen), just the first time they appear in the article, or if the article is rather sizable, if the item is mentioned in two separate sections that are very far apart (There was a little debate about this on The Smashing Pumpkins once when someone kept wikilinking The Cure in the "Musical style and influences" section, even though it had already been linked in the band history section.)
~~You probably don't need the subheadings in the "Impact" section.~~

True. I also merged some of the sub-sections under "Musical style". - Merzbow 00:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are clinking to a previously published source that has been reprinted on the web by a site that does not hold a copyright, reference the original article and remove the link, because the link is technically a copyright violation. For example, the link in "Eliscu, Jenny. "Warner to Ax Eighty Artists", Rolling Stone, Rolling Stone, 2004-06-03" is fine because the link is provided by rollingstone.com. On the other hand, a citation like "Gilbey, Ryan. "Pop: Live - Too hip for berks", The Independent, The Independent, 1997-10-10." should have the link removed, because it is not linking to the Independent's website.

Explained below. - Merzbow 23:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overall a very solid article. Like I said, there's some minor prose issue, but I'll comb through the article at a later date to correct those. Keep up the good work. WesleyDodds 08:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks—good suggestions, I'll get to them today. For "The Groop Played Chord X" the issue is its only 2 minutes in length, so I could only have a sample of about 10 seconds; not enough to properly convey the feel of this slow-moving song properly IMHO. I also have a question about your last comment regarding linking. Findarticles.com, highbeam.com, and rocksbackpages.com have almost certainly licensed the content of the articles they provide; I had to pay the latter two for access, and the first appears to be a major corporation. If you still think I should err on the side of caution, I can remove the links, but is there a specific policy/guideline regarding this where I can read more? - Merzbow 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they're licensed, it's fine. It's just sometimes people link to articles reproduced without authorization on fansites for bands, which they really shouldn't. WesleyDodds 22:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed all the comments above. I also made another copyedit pass; let me know if you still see prose issues. - Merzbow 01:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that I have left to mention is that while copyediting I came across some redundancy. Sadier's and Hansen's vocal interplay is mentioned about four times. There was another redundancy, but it escapes me at the moment. Also, while Stereolab has hardly sold many records, you might want to include some indicator of their sales, like relevant chart positions. For example, Dots and Loops was their first album to chart on the Billboard charts, which is a notable achievement. WesleyDodds 22:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've added US and UK charting mentions. I also mitigated the Hansen/Sadier redundancy, and fixed another as well (Elektra/Warner). - Merzbow 03:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image which is used in the article needs a source, and also a fair use rationale. LuciferMorgan 20:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... when I added that image less than a week ago it was listed as being in the public domain. The original uploader was apparently clueless about copyright. Thanks for catching this, I'll have to find a replacement. - Merzbow 20:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you need the image all that much. If you can't source it properly you can just remove it. WesleyDodds 02:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a picture of a Moog synthesizer, which is probably even a better choice. - Merzbow 03:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyedit. After a final once-over, I intend to nominate the article for FA tonight. - Merzbow 16:59, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two minor suggestions: I think you should remove the phrase "Stereolab have been classified as post-rock, alternative pop, and indie electronic" and replace it with something that explains the groups importance to the post-rock genre (and also replace "post-rock" in the first sentence with the more general alternative rock or rock); and it should be made clear that Sadier was in McCarthy too, since the prose doesn't mention that. WesleyDodds 09:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. She wasn't technically a member of McCarthy as far as I can tell, but contributed vocals to their final album, which I noted. - Merzbow 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"With their 1994 full-length Mars Audiac Quintet, Stereolab took their sound in a lusher, more pop direction, with horns and a marimba giving the record a lounge-pop vibe." - This is an opinion that a critic offers, which the article needs to attribute. At the moment this sentence acts as though it's factual, when actually it's an opinion. LuciferMorgan 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, with some rewording. - Merzbow 05:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]