Jump to content

Talk:It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleIt Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 30, 2023Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on April 13, 2023.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water explores the theme of water and was inspired by Phil Elverum's visits to the ocean?

Comments from DMT

[edit]
  • "It Was Hot received positive reviews from Pitchfork, AllMusic and Sputnikmusic. Pitchfork included the album at number seven on their list of the "Top 20 Albums of 2000". The album received more reviews following its 2013 reissue, including positive reviews from PopMatters, Consequence of Sound, and Treblezine." - I think it better if the lede summarised why critics liked the album rather than merely document the reception.
    • ClockC To-do
  • "but the album's title does not refer to a specific body of water" - feels irrelevant.
    •  Done
  • "Blau is German for blue, which is the reason for the song's lyric "blue moon"' - irrelevant.
    •  Done
  • "is Drum solos" - ?
    •  Done
  • ""The Pull"'s lyrics" to 'The song's lyrics'
    •  Done

That's really all, without getting pedantic. Of this undertaking, I think this is your best work so far. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Realmaxxver: Hey. Just letting you know it's been a month. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Since the album was recorded on analogue tape, technical imperfections were embraced." → "Technical imperfections were embraced, due to the album being recorded on analogue tape." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmaxxver (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 11-minute track "The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow" which is later continued on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." → "The 11-minute track "The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which would be later continued on their next studio album The Glow Pt. 2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmaxxver (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

[edit]

Realmaxxver, PerfectSoundWhatever, what is the current status of this review? As far as I can tell, in two and a half months, Realmaxxver has only posted two minor points, and hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since that day. PerfectSoundWhatever, if you want, we can call for a second opinion in the hopes of finding someone to take over and do the complete review you've been hoping for. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Yes, I'd like a second reviewer, thank you. I had put up a message here but no one saw. I've seen this reviewers other slow reviews, so I wasn't surprised by this. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: @PerfectSoundWhatever: I'll do it. This is a short and easy one that doesn't look hard to unpack, unlike my last one...yikes. dannymusiceditor oops 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

[edit]
  • Upon a cursory glance, I only see one source use the shortened name. I generally think this kind of thing is exceptional to the "no sources in the lead" rule unless you find a suitable place to cover it elsewhere in the article, and recommend at least two but no more than three.
  • There appears to be a slight contradiction toward the end of the first paragraph. I recognize that there is a difference between the album's whole theme and specifically a lyrical theme, but it might take an average reader a second to realize the difference you're making. I'd prefer if you described the album genre wise, and then stated the album's inspiration about the ocean, full stop there, then proceed to clarify that while the album as a whole is centered on the theme of water, while the lyricism focuses on nature in general.
  • (keep note of this one - this might become irrelevant as my review progresses) Of all the choices of sources you could have highlighted for reviews of this album, I don't think Sputnikmusic is the call. While it is perfectly fine to use as a review in general in most cases, including this one, I think NME is a much better choice to highlight the acclaim of this record if you had to choose three. The due weight of Sputnik has been called into question on I believe more than one, but at least one, occasion in the past year, with one of its former editors coming to Wikipedia themselves to talk about it in Wikiproject discussions.
  • You linked Pitchfork twice.

Background

[edit]
  • As it is, section is too small. I recommend merging it with recording.
  • Can you expand slightly on what "modest studio equipment" means in this context?
    • Changed to "low-fidelity"
  • No mention of the apparently existing Window (2000), which would be between this album and Don't Wake Me Up (1999).

Recording

[edit]
  • As it is, section is too small. I recommend merging it with background.
  • Good thing to note, I suppose, but I do have a question. Why is the little use of reverb effects significant? Is this as opposed to previous work?
    • The Treblezine source uses this to convey that Elverum's production is unique: For the Microphones’ only consistent member to consign an epic compositional scope to a dry, starkly intimate production averting the lure of drenching it in canyons of echo, would probably make digital audio engineers in Hollywood shudder and That’s why the sudden swings in sound on this album work, and why shifting instrumentation and imperfection succeed where reverberation would have been overkill. I think this is unnecessary detail for the Recording section, and just adding the fact as is is good enough. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting that you have Khaela Maricich's writing credit included here, but not below in the tracklist. Is this a case where not all of the credits can be known? If so, maybe we should think of using footnotes to help remedy this. Let me know and I'll have something for you. Mention something to the effect of "though individual contributions were not recognized in the credits" with a citation to the booklet here.

Music and themes

[edit]
  • Recommend, but not required: Critics described It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water as...
  • Seeing it now, you should add in the tracklist that "Sand" is an Eric's Trip cover.
  • Instead of simply "building layers", I would say "multiple layers" which build on each other.
  • I think a better choice is "softly" instead of "softer" for the ending of "The Glow".

Critical reception

[edit]
  • I like your use of the footnote here.
  • You linked Sputnikmusic twice in the prose, and named the reviewer twice, both of which are only needed once.
  • You don't have to specify KEXP (or link it) twice.
  • You have Sputnik's reviewer written as a full name in its reference definition, when in fact it is a screen name. I'd suggest you use |author= instead.

Track listing

[edit]

Personnel

[edit]

Fine

Release History

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

Fine

References

[edit]

Overall

[edit]

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Bruxton (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by PerfectSoundWhatever (talk). Nominated by Onegreatjoke (talk) at 22:45, 4 February 2023 (UTC). Note: As of October 2022, all changes made to promoted hooks will be logged by a bot. The log for this nomination can be found at Template talk:Did you know nominations/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water, so please watch a successfully closed nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Onegreatjoke: Article promoted to GA on Jan 30 and nominated on Feb 4. It is long enough and everything is backed by sources. Hook meets the length requirement, it is interesting and cited in the article. QPQ done. Copyvio is a bit too high at 48.7%, I'd recommend trimming down Elverum's quotes from the KEXP source. Sebbirrrr (talk) 22:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. What's the point of chasing an arbitrary number when it doesn't reflect the true state of the article? Most of the "flagged" passages on Earwig are just the album title. There are a handful of quotes I used, (which are properly shown as quotes and clearly not copyvio) but I don't think anything I did is violating a Wikipedia policy; point me to one if I'm wrong. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PerfectSoundWhatever: Apologies for not pinging you as well! This isn't a policy violation as you indicated that the quotes are directly coming from Elverum. I did notice that the album title appears four times, however I still think that some of the quotes could be paraphrased as copyvio flags the source as being in the yellow area. Sebbirrrr (talk) 13:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sebbirrrr: Can you look at this again because it doesn't really look like there's any copyvio issues anymore. Most copyvio flags are just names of the album and a place. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onegreatjoke: Thanks, I checked copyvio again and everything looks alright now. Good to go! Sebbirrrr (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:It_Was_Hot,_We_Stayed_in_the_Water&oldid=1241698736"