Talk:Syro

Syro 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
February 27, 2015	Good article nominee	Listed
May 9, 2015	Featured article candidate	Not promoted

Current status: Good article

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

Electronic music Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Tempo#Beats per minute|BPM]] The anchor (#Beats per minute) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Analord, Chosen Lords and 26 mixes for cash

When referring to Richard D. James and not just "Aphex Twin" It's inaccurate to say that this is his first release since Drukqs. He released the Analord EP series http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Analord in 2006, including a selection of Analord tracks on the Chosen Lords CD, and then additional Analord bonus tracks in 2009, all under the name AFX. Prior to that, he had also released "26 Mixes for cash" in 2003, as Aphex Twin. 26 mixes for cash wasn't entirely original work, but nearly every track was so heavily remixed by Aphex Twin that they are barely recognizable. Counting 26 mixes as an Aphex Twin album and Analord as a single release, Syro would in fact be his 3rd release since 2001's Drukqs. I would update the article but I figure folks might want to discuss it further, since this is indeed the first release of entirely original work under the name Aphex Twin, since drukqs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.186.194 (talk) 17:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct release date?

Well, two different media sources, both of which have published the press release, present two different release dates. Is this a UK/US difference, or is this further trickery by James and his team? --Soulparadox (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No trickery, I'm afraid! Release dates differ per country, usually selected by the record label so as to sell as much copies as possible within a chart week. For example: Syro will be released on 17 September (Friday) in Ireland because it's the day that the music charts are published pubically and a new chart week begins; in the UK, it's 21 September (Sunday) for the same reason. Publications are mentioning release dates specific to their own countries and readers, e.g. Pitchfork in the US and Digital Spy in the UK. There's official sources cited for each release date at the bottom of the article which should be reflected in the prose, not speculation as to correct regional dates (which we already have). --Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 07:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent—I was thinking this, but didn't see anything written in the media articles about the different markets, which normally is included by journalists. This makes sense, so thank you.--Soulparadox (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"the music charts are published pubically" ... got any pictures? (-: --2001:6F8:1071:10:45B6:B6C5:8DFE:9A0C (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Country release dates

Hi, Just curious how useful it is to list every release date for tons of countries? As this is the English wikipedia and Richard is a predominantly English artist, shouldn't we focus on release dates that would be the earliest, than other countries that would be useful for predominantly English users? (UK, Ireland, US, etc.?). I'm not even sure if we should be using the iTunes store as a source for these things. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Before a pointless edit war breaks out… could John Snow II and 84.10.80.14 please discuss any issues you might have here? In the last 24 hours two Wikpedia policies (WP:3RR and WP:NPA) have been violated, and it's not benefiting the article whatsoever—that includes the removal of additional sourced material, not just issues you might have with the wording of some parts of the article. The latest revision of the article maintains the "forthcoming", "British" and "penultimate" wording that seems to be the main issue; it also contains large portions of sourced information that is both newly added and was needlessly wiped during reverts. --Idiotchalk _(t@lk) 16:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please let's discuss; I am genuinely baffled as to what the concern was in the first place. The article's looking good at present through. John Snow II (talk) 12:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is my firm belief that both Wikipedia and Richard D. James deserve better than this, so thank you to Idiotchalk for raising the matter.--Soulparadox (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to add IDM as a genre to this album?

J.A.F (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J.A.F, I tried digging up some sources for the album. I couldn't find any specifically for this album as a whole, this is sort of the closest I could find. I think journalists and reviewers are hestiant to use this term anymore because of it's kind of snobby attitudes ("it's intelligent!", etc.) so it may be hard to find a source for it. If you can find any from a reliable source, I don't see why we couldn't add it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aphex Twin's new store link includes an extra track at the end, "end E2". Other Aphex Twin tracks are like this as well. Do we acknowledge them? https://aphextwin.warp.net/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:DDC3:2000:CD50:503C:AC74:65D4 (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki links within quotes

I have removed numerous Wiki links that were placed within journalist quotes. Please refer to the relevant section in the Manual of Style to attain further clarity on this matter. Thanks.--Soulparadox (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Syro/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favourite records from last year - I'm looking forward to reviewing this :) — sparklism ^hey! 19:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

There are three repeat links in this section: Drukqs, The Guardian and Rolling Stone

Done Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Images/media

The three album art images (File:Aphex twin syro.jpg, File:Aphex Twin - Syro alt cover.jpg and File:Syro equipment graphic.jpg) are all tagged as needing a WP:FUR. I would recommend using {{Non-free use rationale album cover}} for the rationale (not the license).

Done Added rationales. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The music file File:Aphex Twin - XMAS EVET10 sample.ogg is also tagged for FUR. It may be that the parameter just needs setting to 'yes' here, because the rationale is already there.

Done Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

Ref 103 is dead.

Done - Fixed; added new source Aria1561 (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has now been replaced with this link. I might be missing something, but there's no mention of Syro on that page. — sparklism ^hey! 06:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Replaced it with a better source. Aria1561 (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which was redone in 2007." How about something like "..as well as Melodies from Mars, a collection of unreleased material from 1995 which James reworked in 2007"?

Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

" under the same pseudonym" → " under the Caustic Window alias"?

Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

"Syro was nominated for, and subsequently won, a Grammy Award.." → "Syro won a Grammy Award.." because it's just simpler to say it this way

Done Aria1561 (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

This is a very high quality article as it stands. I'll be going through everything in depth as part of this review and adding to my comments above, but this is already close to GA status, from what I can see. — sparklism ^hey! 21:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking really good. I've got a few (minor) concerns about the prose, which I'm too busy IRL to detail right now - I'll provide some commentary on this over the next day or two. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 07:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this has taken me so long. I've added a couple of points above - I'm not a copyediting expert by any means, but most of what I see seems reasonable enough. I'd recommend taking this to WP:GOCE at some point, but I won't let this get in the way of the GA review. — sparklism ^hey! 09:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all of my concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to pass this as a good article - well done! And also congrats to Idiotchalk, who has been a huge contributor to this article. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 08:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for reviewing this :) Aria1561 (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2015 (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.