Jump to content

Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Eurohunter (talk · contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: I started review. Comments will be below. Review within 2023 GAN Backlog Drives. Eurohunter (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: It's been over a week since you started review. When are you going to finish it? Lazman321 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lazman321: I think it should be ready this evening or tomorrow. Eurohunter (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

[edit]
  1. No need to capitalise all leters in "END OF LIFE ENTERTAINMENT SCENARIO #1". Same for "ECCOJAMC1" in "Reception and legacy". Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Lopatin released an official remaster for digital download from his website on November 22, 2016, being available in MP3 and FLAC formats." - i'm not sure if there is a need to mention formats. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no introduction to previous and next album in the text. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

[edit]
  1. ""mash the chopped and screwed plunderphonics of Dan Lopatin...with" - shouldn't there be space after dots? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Well – the entire point of Eccojams was that it was a DIY" - I think "DIY" could be linked. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

[edit]
  1. There is full date of 2016 release in section "Background and release". Is this the same release or not? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

[edit]
  1. Add links to archived versions in references. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Full name Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1 could be used more in the article. 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  3. Reference number 28. How do I know it's published by official account? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There is 2020 remastered and it's not mentioned in the article. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I did minor fixes. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

[edit]

Usually, I address each request individually with a comment underneath. Because this seems to be interfering with the # markup's function, I will be condensing my comments. I have done most your of requests, but there are a few that I want to respond to:

That's about it. Lazman321 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I would like a second opinion right about now. As a nominator, I have never been in such prolonged disputes over relatively minor things in the review process and I'm running low on patience right now. I just don't know what to say right now. Eurohunter, could you change the status of the GAN template on the talk page to "2ndopinion" to formally request a second opinion from another reviewer? I don't think have the power to do that myself as a nominator. And whoever responds, could you please settle the disputes once and for all? Do I have to add a custom note to the AMA reference to verify its authenticity or legitimacy? And do I really have to mention the previous and current albums from the infobox in the article body, especially since Replica is already mentioned in the reception and legacy section? Lazman321 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lazman321: I focus on quality, so that's why I want to make it as best as possible. I don't know why you are so impatient and don't want to just add needed information. It's simple - if there is no way for the reader to confirm the status of the account, then you should add a note. I added second opinion request. Eurohunter (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may be beneficial for the reviewer to read through the WP guideline for reviewing good articles, particularly the section on imposing your personal criteria. Although the list may be out-of-date, GA review mentors are also available to help with the process. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on AMA source

[edit]

My comments here are narrowly focused on the question of how the AMA source (ref 28 in Special:Permalink/1180453438) should be treated. I consulted WP:SOCIALMEDIA and found that it meets all five bullet points. Therefore the source is acceptable in its current form. Returning this to status=onreview. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter @Lazman321 just making sure you both are aware that I've finished the 2O. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, nothing seems to be happening here, so I'm going to declare this review abandoned per WP:GAN/I#N4a RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]