Talk:Selected Ambient Works 85–92/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Passed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 3 April 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.

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

Nominator: Davest3r08 (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this, as a massive fan of this album. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already made various edits regarding missing info, such as placements on best of lists, as well as removing sources out of the lead section. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments[edit]

Overall the article is looking good, but it needs some work before it can pass. Here are my main concerns:

The lead section does not convey how important this album is to the electronic genre. It needs to convey its importance on a wider scale (i.e. what it was praised for, why it's important, etc.)

In progress Shouldn't take that long, as there is some information about the album's legacy in the reception section. Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 16:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How's this going? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zmbro, I think I should finish by tommorow. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 00:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zmbro, Done— Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 22:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mention of Selected Ambient Works Volume II is technically WP:OR as it's only mentioned once in the whole article (in the lead section), and is unsourced at that. If Volume II must be mentioned, it should be in the body, as well as the major fact that it's a genre shift from 85–92 Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the composition and reception sections consist of: "X person said this." "Y person said that", etc. While it's not that big a deal for GAs, it's still noticeable. Maybe try summarizing or being more general.
- Maybe I could open a request at WP:GOCE/REQ? Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 22:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to do that I'll have to fail this as you can't request copy edits with open articles that have open PRs, GANs, or FACs. Plus, you'll likely be waiting at least a few months before someone grabs it. It shouldn't be that big of a task. I just think a general summary of the article's contents would be best rather than "X person said this." "Y person said that"... But it's up to you. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Zmbro, eh, as it's not much of an issue as you said, and as I have no plans to bring this to FAC, I'm marking this as Not done. — Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 23:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This section still needs some rewording before passing. In composition alone there are five instances of the word "noted", which itself is a word to watch per WP:EDITORIAL. Then there are two "stated that" and two "wrote that". Again, I recommend trying to summarize more. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In progress— Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 11:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Zmbro, Done (I've replaced instances of "noted that" and "wrote that"). — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 17:41, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio detector is at 35.9%. Seems to be because of duplicate quotes between two sources. Shouldn't be a problem. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

ref 10: Is alt.rave reliable? Removed Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ref 8: I doubt Space Age Bachelor is reliable Removed Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ref 24: Soundcloud link that is missing ref info and I doubt is reliable as it is Removed Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ref 23: missing work/publisher/date/author Done Davest3r08 >:) ^(talk) 13:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article sometimes uses James' and other times uses James's. Use whichever one is considered British English. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning on using the Rock's Backpages review from The Wire listed under 'sources'? If not I'd remove it. I have access to it and it's only 154 words and doesn't really have much notable info so I'd be fine with removing it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Zmbro, no. — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason why no authors are mentioned in prose most of the time ("According to AllMusic," "Pitchfork stated that") while sometimes the authors are mentioned? ("Barney Hoskyns described", "Geeta Dayal of The Guardian wrote"). Choose one or the other (preferably the author listed because one writer said it, not the publication itself) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In progress— Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 01:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done— Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 13:09, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - (courtesy pinging @zmbro) — Davest3r08 >:3 ^(talk) 13:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have any more issues. The article is in much better shape and covers the album's importance much better. Prose could still use a little work, but this isn't FAC so it's perfectly fine for GA. Happy to ✓ Pass – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.