Talk:Virtual Self (EP)/GA1

GA Review

Unsuccessful. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (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

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you on another Porter Robinson-related article, Skyshifter! I'll happily take this review. I'll probably have my first big round of comments for you this evening (PT), but may take until tomorrow morning. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: 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:
· · ·

Result

Citation numbers from this revision.

I was a bit taken aback when I first saw how many citations there were to the first few references during my first skim. That surprise gradually turned to concern as I realized that many of those sources were interviews. If I'm counting right, citations 1–5 and 7–9 are all interviews. As primary sources, interviews should generally be used sparingly, and only to verify uncontroversial descriptions of fact or a person's claims about themselves, in line with the primary sources and biographies of living persons policies respectively. While some of these sources are a mixture of quotes from Robinson and some interpretive statements from the publishing journalist, there are simply too many of them to be acceptable in this case. Additionally, citation 6 is an article written by a Forbes contributor — not a staff member — making the source not reliable.

Taking all of this into account, I tried to see if these issues could be handled within this review. I want to note that, going through the article and highlighting statements verified by the sources I mentioned above, well over half of the prose had to be removed or rewritten in some way. This includes entire sections, such as § Background and the majority of § Concept and inspiration. Given the volume of work that it's going to take to clean up these issues, this nominee quick-fails under criterion 2b of the good article criteria; I'm sorry.

That being said, I still have some feedback in other areas that I hope will help you improve. I went through the lead in particular with a fine-tooth comb, as that's the one section least likely to change too much in an overhaul. I'm confident that it's only a matter of time until you can bring this article back to GAN, stronger than ever! I'm more than happy to answer any follow-up questions you have from this review, feel free to ping me on the article's talk page! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some detailed comments

2017, through → 2017 through
...maintain its sound or work on a follow-up. This is a confusing statement with no prior context given. Maybe rephrase as something along the lines of "...create a follow-up work that matched its quality."?
plotting → developing or planning. That should make it sound less like Robinson is considering a crime.
doesn't → does not
"...in the same shows." should be singular, and I would probably go with "...in the same performance." for clarity.
~~with inspirations from early 2000s genres~~
tried to recreate → recreated
Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere. What's the source for this statement? Even if this is sourced, it probably needs to be attributed to the author.
"Two singles were released" needs elaboration. Promotional singles? Before or after the EP?
UTOPiA SySTEM → Utopia System
charted on the Dance/Electronic → charted on Billboard's Dance/Electronic
I'd advise going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice and adjusting the section headers so they more closely match the style used for other album articles.
The quotes in § Critical reception are a bit too long for my liking. I'd recommend paraphrasing them a bit.
§ Release history seems rather redundant as there was only ever one release and the information is covered in other parts of the article.
I'd like to see translated titles for the Japanese sources. At the very least, they should be marked using the |lang= parameter.

Images and media

Virtual Self EP cover art.jpg is a non-free image used appropriately to identify the subject of the article.
Porter Robinson Chicago 2014.jpg and Virtual Self NYC.jpg are freely licensed images on Commons.
Virtual Self - Ghost Voices.ogg and Virtual Self - Eon Break.ogg are non-free audio files that comply with the music samples guideline and are used appropriately in the article.

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.