Talk:Rings Around the World/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over the weekend. SilkTork *^YES! 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
Closer cites to quotes needed where appropriate, and a trim back on too much reliance on using quotes in place of summary

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Too much detail on session musicians, etc
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm reading through it now, and this is a very clearly written piece which manages to convey a lot of useful information well supported by sources, giving a range of views in a balanced and informative manner using a rich amount of direct quotes to reassure the reader that the information is accurate. This is in many respects the model Wikipedia article, far removed from the articles that contain poorly chosen material, often trivial or inconsequential, poorly presented, poorly sourced, and too often written with a desire to praise rather than evaluate.

Some quibbles though. The statement about the simultaneous release on DVD and CD is presented in the lead as "the first album to be simultaneously released on both audio CD and DVD", which is appropriate, as the sources support that, and it's a good soundbite. When we come down to the detail, which is based on the excellent soundonsound article, the statement is puffed up slightly and presented again as a soundbite with the more important information - the reason the band decided to use the DVD technology - pushed to the rear of the statement. This is only a quibble, but I feel to match the standard of the rest of the article, a switch of focus might be appropriate - foregrounding the reason the band chose to use the technology, and then confirming for the reader that this was the first time this had been done.

The quotes from Cian Ciárán, "give them more movement", etc, need close citing per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#When_quoting_someone. SilkTork *^YES! 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He has claimed that the record was originally going to be a "state of the planet concept album" before the band decided against but is still "about Earth, and the pollution of space: it's about debris". There's something not quite right about this sentence. SilkTork *^YES! 11:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After praising the article for good use of quotes, I am now going to moan about too much reliance on them in the Lyrical themes section. This sentence is an extreme example - "Receptacle for the Respectable" is "a song about a girl around town, and being in awe/hurt by a powerful woman about town" while "It's Not the End of the World?" is "a romantic song about growing old". That has clearly gone too far, as it is almost entirely quotation. The Lyrical themes section could invite a {{Quotefarm}} tag. Please review the sources and make a summary of the comments made by the musicians and critics, using quotes to illuminate particular points rather than to carry the whole weight of the statement. SilkTork *^YES! 14:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And after saying that the article didn't contain trivial information, I am looking closely at the Personnel section, and there's a lot of non-notable people listed. An encyclopedia entry covers the important essentials, for extreme fine detail it is appropriate for people to go to the primary source. McCartney and Cale are clearly worth noting, though the other session musicians are not. Should Jonez be Jonze? SilkTork *^YES! 15:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There only needs to be one infobox on the article. Either the DVD release is a separate album, in which case it should have a separate article, or it should be treated as a reissue. This DVD is of particular interest, so it justifies having a section to itself, but that doesn't make it a standalone release - it is still a reissue. SilkTork *^YES! 15:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On hold

This is a very fine article. Very impressive. The minor points shouldn't take long to sort out.

Each quote needs a close cite.
Trim back excessive use of reliance on quotes, and make more use of summarizing the source material.
Trim back Personnel section to essential and interesting information.
Refocus the statement about the simultaneous release on DVD and CD so the reason is foregrounded rather than the soundbite
Clarify He has claimed that the record was originally going to be a "state of the planet concept album" before the band decided against but is still "about Earth, and the pollution of space: it's about debris".

I'll pop back in seven days. Give me a ping if done before then, or if there are any queries. SilkTork *^YES! 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Hi SilkTork, thanks for your kind words and thorough review. I'll attempt to address your concerns and leave my comments here.

Although I know what you mean I'm unsure about removing some of the session musicians from the 'Personnel' section . I've checked some FA class album articles and they all include non-notable musicians in their 'Personnel' sections. Also, although he is not really notable in his own right, Kris Jenkins has performed percussion for the band on all their albums since 1999, similarly most of the string and brass players regularly appear on SFA records. Obviously someone like Paul McCartney is notable and should be there but I think it would be a bit odd if he got a credit but someone like Sonia Slany didn't despite playing on three tracks to McCartney's one and providing string arrangements. The Mike Jonez credit is presented exactly how it appears in the DVD booklet and I'm pretty sure it's just a jokey reference to Spike Jonze. The video in question certainly doesn't look like its by Jonze and I can't find any references to link Jonze with the project. Cavie78 (talk) 10:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also had a look at a few good and featured albums before making my comment on the sessions musicians. Clearly, neither of us is going to go through the entire list, so it tends to be a random selection. My selection had no lists of sessions musicians. I just looked again at the FA albums in the first two lines at Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Music and didn't see lists of sessions musicians. I saw the main personnel listed, and notable "additional musicians". The list present in this article is fairly extensive, and I'm wondering at how it can be helpful to the general reader, especially as most of these people are not notable, even if a number of them are professional session musicians. How are we to proceed? Because my interpretation of the GA criteria is that such a long list goes "into unnecessary detail", which signifies a fail. Would the article suffer if the list were trimmed? SilkTork *^YES! 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about close citing of the quotations as another editor in an earlier GA review of mine made me move all the refs so they came after a mark of punctuation which is something I've followed since. A quick look at today's featured article Richard Gavin Reid shows that quotes are dealt with in the same way as my article, with the ref coming at the end of the sentence or even paragraph. The link you gave seems ambiguous as the example shown ends with a full stop. Arrgh! I'm happy to move the refs but want to make 100% sure it's necessary as it will change the way I cite future articles. Cavie78 (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, think I misunderstood your original point, didn't realise that several of the quotes weren't properly cited - done now. Cavie78 (talk) 13:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed some of the quotes from the lyrical themes section. Because most of them are direct quotes from Rhys without comment I'm worried that it might start getting POV if I interpret any further so hope that's ok. Cavie78 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: the DVD infobox, I'd much rather keep it as I deem the DVD release to be significantly different to warrant one but not different enough to require its own article. As far as I can tell after trawling through pages of discussions it's perfectly acceptable for an article to contain multiple infoboxes. Cavie78 (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it is notable enough to warrant a section, but it's not standard for variations or reissues of an album to have their own infobox. Guidelines, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums indicate that there is one infobox placed in the top right corner of the article. Incidentally, I just noticed that the current guidelines on use of Infobox indicates that reviews should not be included in the box, but in the Reception section - Wikipedia:Albums#Professional_reviews. That's been there since at least August last year (I didn't look back further). What do you feel the reader is gaining by having the DVD infobox? I looked at it and I felt it was wasting my time reading it. I felt it was a trivial diversion. It irritates me slightly, as it wasn't telling me anything, and seemed to be there for it's own sake. I should imagine that a number of readers would get the same feeling that they have been attracted by the box, only to discover that it has nothing to say. It doesn't do Wikipedia any favours! SilkTork *^YES! 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have reworded as "He has claimed that the record is "about Earth, and the pollution of space: it's about debris" and that it was originally going to be a "state of the planet concept album" before the band decided against." Was the problem the apparent contradiction? I guess he's saying that the band thought about making a concept record but shelved the idea, however the theme of Earth and pollution remained. Is this ok? Cavie78 (talk) 13:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is clearer - thanks. SilkTork *^YES! 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with your comments about the DVD release - I've been worknig on the article that long my eyes glaze over a bit when I look through it so good spot! I've changed to "The group eventually decided against the idea but, drawn by the technical capabilities of the format and the desire to do something that had never been done before, produced a DVD version of Rings..., making it the first album to be simultaneously released on CD and DVD. The DVD features a surround sound mix alongside music videos and remixes and was made possible only by the financial backing of Epic." What do you think? Cavie78 (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect. SilkTork *^YES! 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

I've left the reviews in the Infobox as that is not really a part of the GA Review, and it seems fairly widespread practice to include such reviews. I've removed the DVD Infobox as I think that is against MoS, and is seriously distracting from an otherwise impressive article. The excessive personnel list is very dodgy, and I'm not comfortable setting a precedent in keeping such a list in a Good Article (for other people to point to as an example!), but on reflection I think it is a small point in an otherwise fine article. It is a matter of interpretation for the "unnecessary detail" criteria, and I can accept that there may be a value in such information. A reader can choose to skip that section or not. I have reformatted it slightly, more in line with standard usage, and less distracting. This is a very good article - well researched and well presented. SilkTork *^YES! 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]