Talk:Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite 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
Date	Process	Result
April 16, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

R&B and Soul Music Top‑importance

	R&B and Soul Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music articles 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.R&B and Soul MusicWikipedia:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicTemplate:WikiProject R&B and Soul MusicR&B and Soul Music articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Hi, I am reviewing this article and have done some copy editing of some grammatical and wording problems. When a word is used repetitiously, I tried to reword for more variety in phrasing. Feel free to change any mistakes I have made.

Overall, this is a well written, well researched, well referenced article that gives wonderful insight into the topic. I only have a few issues, although I have not yet been through the entire article.

There is a slight POV tone to the article. Rather than being objective, using terms like he was "hailed" or other overly laudatory words give the feeling this article is not quite objective.
There is a repetitiousness of wording. In some paragraphs, for example, the wording going from "one critic says" to "another critic says" etc. which is not interesting writing.
From the article: Jon Caramanica of The New York Times views the album's influence as broader than neo soul; he stated "The unfortunate genre of urban adult contemporary and some recent movements in smooth jazz — anything with a decidedly silky alto sax, really — can trace their genealogies directly to him." - This seems to me to be a negative comment. But it is mixed in with all praise, and int import of the meaning is not commented on.

I may add more. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited it for the first two concerns, but I don't get the third; the critic is saying that Maxwell's sound, which he said is best exemplified on the album, influenced the two musical genres. Dan56 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. When the critic says "The unfortunate genre of urban adult contemporary and some recent movements in smooth jazz ..." , he is saying that a genre that he considers "unfortunate" i.e. he thinks it and a related genre never should have come into existence, were influenced to come into existence by this album. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the statement. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
I think that there are too many quotations in the article from critics. "Musical style", "Lyrical themes" and "Content" have so many quotations from critcs and writers that these sections should be part of the "Critical response" section. The over use of quotes from critics and writers continues in the "Breakthrough" and "Neo soul" sections. The article becomes a maze of laudatory quotations that reading it all gets very repetitious after a while. I think the article could be shorted with the effect that the writing would be clearer and more interesting.
Please see WP:MOS#Overlinking. You are overlinking common words (love, sex, marriage, monogamy, spirituality in the lead alone). Also, once you have wikilinked a word, balladry, sex symbol etc. (which probably don't need to be wikilinked to begin with) you should not wikilink them again in the article, unless it is a very abstruse term and the first wikilink occurred much earlier in the article so that the reader is likely to have forgotten. The goal is to wikilink judiciously so that you do not have that "sea of blue" that is so distracting to the reader.

—Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it up a bit; I removed some of the quotes and put some in the critical response section. Also removed some links. Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced quotes/moved them to critical response and removed wikilinks. By the way, are "instrumental" and "misogynistic" common words? Dan56 (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think both of those are common words. Certainly "instrumental" is. If his lyrics are "misogynistic", should you not address that more fully, giving examples?
You have done good by cutting down the article and removing some quotes. It still is a very long article.
It still has a lot of quotes that do not add much, e.g. One writer wrote of Urban Hang Suite's tempo and composition, writing that it "starts as a dance party" and "slowly descends in tempo, song by song".

Do you mean that it starts at a fast tempo and slows down? Why does this need to be quoted. The effect of all the quotes is to give the impression that you are afraid to make statements and only feel comfortable using the words of others.

So many quotes by critics but none of his lyrics.

—Mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed more quotes; what more should i remove? Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have definitely improved it. Let me read it again. I am concerned that it is POV. That is, that it is overly laudatory and not neutral. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

The lead is too positive and does not mention that not all reviews were laudatory. You removed from the body of the article the negative review from the New York Times than said that this album contributed to an unfortunate tendency to rather smooth music in this genre - can't remember the exact quote. You must give a balanced, objective presentation and this article is too POV. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the lead, the NY Times article wasnt negative or a review, and i dont understand what part is POV; in the critical response? Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The New York Times quote that you removed said basically that this album bordered on "easy listening" blank, silky, over processed music. You say "general positive review" which is the standard phrase used in these articles. But you do not provide any real critical reviews. The whole article is very adoring. Being a sex symbol or whatever is very trite stuff and hardly reflective of quality music. What about the misogyny, etc. Perhaps I will ask for a second opinion on this. Would that be OK? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the article. It talked about how the smooth jazz and urban contemporary genres were influenced by Maxwell and the album's sound. Dan56 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I am satisified. Thanks for being so cooperative and responsive. I think that article is good now. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on article topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

A good job. Congratulations!

—Mattisse (Talk) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Tribune review

Transcription using Google News Advanced News Archive Search. Chicago Tribune (Kot, Greg. 7.A. June 6, 1996) review of Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite (1996):

Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite (Columbia) (star) (star) (star). The urban soul revival is in full swing with recent records by D'Angelo, Tony Rich and now Maxwell, a 22-year-old throwback to the mellow jazz-inflected funk of the early '70s. Opening with the sound of a needle landing on a scratchy vinyl album to set the appropriate "dusties" vibe, Maxwell charts the course of a seduction over the entire album in a manner clearly descended from the tender eroticism of Marvin Gaye's "Let's Get It On." While still in thrall to his decades-old inspirations, Maxwell speaks a language that sounds a good deal more authentic than many of today's lusty new-jack swingers or mush-mouthed balladeers.
— Greg Kot

Dan56 (talk) 15:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling Stone review

2004 retrospective review (4/5 stars):

With his 1996 debut, good-looking soul man Maxwell sought to create a style of seductive, bedroom-ready R&B that could incorporate pop, funk, jazz, and hip-hop, as though he were some kind of postmodern Marvin Gaye. Maxwell's laid-back romanticism has heat at its core and a powerful groove that grounds the music: By varying the push of the beat but retaining the central mellow vibe, Maxwell creates a sound as felicitous on headphones as it is in the bedroom. Song after song explores the long-dormant possibilities of gentlemanly sexuality, from the kindly "Welcome" to the generous hit "Ascencion (Don't Ever Wonder)" to the come-ons of ". . . Til the Cops Come Knockin'."
— Christian Hoard

Dan56 (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

:Final GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on article topic
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: Neutral
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Last edited at 17:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 23:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717100310/http://www.trevornelson.com/nonflash/top50.asp to http://www.trevornelson.com/nonflash/top50.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:59, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]