Talk:Analog revival

Analog revival has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: March 28, 2024. (Reviewed version).

Electronic music Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Musical Instruments Low‑importance

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thanks

Thanks, @Schminnte, for creating a page about music technology that has been carefully researched and written around reliable sources. That's rare in this area of Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 17:45, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much @Popcornfud, it means a lot. I sometimes look to articles like the TR-808 to model off, so it's nice to finally meet you! I agree, it is rare to find others truly interested in electronic music and synths, so feel free to reach out whenever now that we've found each other! All the best, Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 17:52, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

Passed. Jon (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Analog revival/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Schminnte (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Jonathanischoice (talk · contribs) 23:00, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'll review this over the next day or so, adding comments below, followed by an initial assessment in the table, then allow some time for a bit of to-and-fro etc. Sorry for the delay. — Jon (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A little reworking of some of the prose, as suggested below by popcornfud (talk · contribs) Done
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources OK, layout and use of short-form notes OK.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources are reliable, nothing contentious.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Need to address some uncited bits in the "20th century: dance music revival" section Done
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	There is nothing alarming (2%) in the copyvio report.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No conflicts in the talk page.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Image rights OK.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are suitable, captions OK.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Review comments

Lead

it took until the early 21st century for major manufacturers to begin producing analog synthesizers again might read better as something like ...to resume production of analog synthesizers

Done

Background

Introduce Robert Moog, e.g. American engineer Robert Moog, fix "his the" to "his"

Done

Fix redundancy in the last sentence, }In the 1980s, [...] in the 1980s.

Done

20th century: dance music revival

The wording of the citation of Barlindhaug in the second sentence is awkward; perhaps just add a short-form citation to the source (already in §Sources).

Done

More generally the first paragraph needs citations around the 1988 dance music emergence, use of Roland drum machines, etc.
@Popcornfud: do you have an opportunity to address basically the first half of this first paragraph (of the "20th century: dance music revival" section)? I think if we got the citations fixed up and/or the prose reworked a little, we can pass this as GA. — Jon (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the review only yesterday, thank you for taking this on @Jon. I should be able to carry out these last points as I did with another outstanding nomination, so there's no need for anyone else to do the work I really should be doing! I can look at it sometime tonight. Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 12:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't generally get involved in FA/GA stuff any more, but I'm always happy to do some copyediting. If I were reviewing this article, I'd ask for better prose; sentences such as "the growing demand for analog created by this movement was not capitalized on fully for some time" are IMO a little clunky. (Sorry for the bluntness.) I'll see if I can make time for it later this week. Popcornfud (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I'll place this on hold which gives us 7 days. Cheers — Jon (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've changed the in-text citation to an sfn, 2) I've added some more citations to make it clearer which source is being referred to in different sentences, 3) I've changed that particular phrasing and quickly copyedited the prose. I'm more than willing to go through the prose again, just waiting for additional comments if needed. All the best, Schminnte^{[talk to me]} 00:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, this looks good to me, but I'll have a more thorough look later tonight when I'm free. — Jon (talk) 08:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done

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.