Talk:Bleach (Nirvana album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FormerIP (talk) 11:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I am not a very experienced GA reviewer, so please feel free to argue back if you like.

Well I must admitt, it's much better than my first review.

• Think the article is not far off and is well written with well-chosen content. However, there are a few sourcing problems and other things, listed here. If these are fixed, then I think the article would qualify for GA.

• The lead is too long and contains too much detail. Things like who took promo photos, how the band were credited on the sleeve and details about single releases are already included in the body and detract from the usefulness of the lead, IMO. Would like to see this at least halved in length.

Done (verify)

That's not "at least half", though. I'll tell you what, I'll cut it down to what I think it should be and if you're happy with it, we'll call it done.--FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the version you have saved include more from Recording and Promotion and release. CrowzRSA 21:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would like the sourcing that Jason Everman was not on the album to be clearer. I believe it, but it should be cited. Suspect it may be in the source at footnote 1, but this is not attached to the sentence in question, so it is not clear.

I added a reference to it in the credit section, if that's what you mean

I was talking about the sentence ending: ...even though he did not perform on the record. This is arguably a WP:BLP issue, because if he did perform on the record then he has a right for this to be acknowledged. Think it is likely that the sourcing is in footnote 1, but this appears at the end of the following sentence.--FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done

 Done --FormerIP (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• The songs were described as "deliberately bleak, claustrophobic, and lyrically sparse, with none of the manic derangement or sense of release of the live performance." - this requires sourcing.

Done

 Done --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Statements by Christopher Sandford need sourcing, and I am not sure what "folf-influenced" means. (Should this be "folk-influenced"?).

Done

 Done --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• The single's release was said by Kurt Cobain to have attracted "illiterate redneck kids". Cobain, being unhappy with the single, said that it was marketed as "sludge [from] untamed Olymbia drop–ins." needs sourcing.

Done

Half done. Is the "illiterate redneck kids" quote from the same source? If so, either duplicate the endnote or attempt to create a single sentence(Kurt Cobain was unhappy with the single, saying that it attracted "illiterate redneck kids" and was marketed as "sludge [from] untamed Olymbia drop–ins".) If the redneck quote is from a different source, then that needs to be provided. --FormerIP (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done (There both from "Sandford, 1995. p. 111")

 Done --FormerIP (talk) 22:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• The paragraph beginning: The album's working title was Too Many Humans... seems to me to be misplaced within the article. Perhaps it should be at the beginning of the same section (?).

Well I moved it above the previous paragraph, but since the section is titles Promotion and release, I think it should go under the promotion and touring info.

• This isn't something that I think would fail the article, but think allmusic and about.com are not strong sources for album reviews (compared to NME and Rolling Stone which are also cited). Suggest that these should perhaps be removed.

Actually, Allmusic can be seen on nearly every album page, whether FA, GA, or below... ie: Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses), Double Allergic, [[1]]. Although About.com nowadays doesn't display many reviews, the ones it does have (by employees) are actually notable.

• • Allmucic reviews are fine, especially ones by Stephen Thomas Erlewine. --JD554 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well I'm convinced by the arguments for allmusic, but about.com hardly seems to be to be the gold standard for reviews, particularly for an album that is likely to have been reviewed by every music publication under the sun. Here a review from the BBC: [2], one from Uncut: [3]. Maybe there'll be others, but that's what came up quickly. Maybe a quote from one could be swapped for about.com? --FormerIP (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Any further thoughts on this? I really think about.com looks incongruous here. Also, with this section, I think some dating should be given to the reviews, since the way its written might suggest they are from when it was first released (I think even including the word "has" in the first sentence would help - it somehow indicates a wider timespan. --FormerIP (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • I think that when About.com actually released a staff review, it is notable. I added the "has", but I don't think the dates really are THAT significant. CrowzRSA 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• What is the Top Pop Catalogue Chart? (it doesn't appear to have a WP article, so perhaps it is not notable)
  • I don't think it's necessary for this to be mentioned as the album charted on the Billboard200. --JD554 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Still awaiting a reponse here, Crowz. --FormerIP (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't see a reason NOT to have it, since that's just in the Reception section and can be verified... CrowzRSA 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
        • The Top Pop Catalog chart seems to be a special Billboard chart that albums go onto once they drop out of the Billboard 200. It isn't listed at Wikipedia:GOODCHART#United_States_charts, but I think it is the case that where an album has made the Billboard 100 we do not normally mention chart placings in charts other than the ones in the top row of the table there. --FormerIP (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Why is the chart placing in Finland noted? Nothing against Finland, but why not also Poland, for example?
  • The placing for Finland is noted because it is verifiable. The Polish chart is not, see WP:GOODCHARTS. --JD554 (talk) 13:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
    • It looks like charts of at least 21 countries are verifiable (plus others if an RS could be found). Why is Finland notable but not ... well, lets' say Austria, then? --FormerIP (talk) 16:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Most of the charts are the ones seen in Nirvana discography.

Okay, but I'm not sure that answers the question. Is the Finish chart position notable for some reason?

Not particularly, but it is verifiable and we don't want to include every chart possible as that would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE, so a decision has to be taken by editors as to the relative success on various charts and present it in a WP:NPOV way as per the current consensus (but not yet a guideline) at Wikipedia:WikiProject Discographies/style. --JD554 (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"Indiscriminate" would also include picking a selection of data without any apparent reason for the selection, though. --FormerIP (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

If you read WP:INDISCRIMINATE it says, "Wikipedia articles should not be ... Excessive listing of statistics." It doesn't mention selecting data without any apparent reason. Apart from which, I mentioned that editors need to make a balanced decision based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NPOV, that is not "selection of data without any apparent reason". --JD554 (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, but have editors looked at the relative success on various charts and represented it in a NPOV way? And, if so, what is the rationale for selecting those countries that have been selected? --FormerIP (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would assume so unless you have evidence to the contrary. Which part of the good article criteria covers this? --JD554 (talk) 16:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail". I'm asking for an explanation as to why the information about Finland is necessary. I don't understand the rationale behind including it (and also the "Top Pop Catalog Chart"). IMO, the fact that it is verifiable is not enough. --FormerIP (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You are the only reviewer I have ever come across who has said that well cited information on an album's chart positions isn't suitable because verifiability isn't enough. The purpose of releasing an album is to sell copies of it. Chart positions are a measure of how well an album sells. A chart placement is an important part of an album article. You may not be interested in how well an album did in another country, but people from that country undoubtedly will be. Also, the Top Pop Catalog chart shows how well older albums sell in the US. --JD554 (talk) 16:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the bias in excluding Belgium, Candada or Switzerland? All I'm asking for here is an explanation as to why this detail is needed. It looks incongruous. Maybe there is something I am not aware of here, though, which is why I am asking. --FormerIP (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

There appears to have been some crossed wires here. I was under the impression we were talking about the chart table, but Finland isn't listed there at all, but is mentioned in prose. We don't need to have a prose section with chart information and a chart table, especially if they have different charts in them. The article should contain either comprehensive information in prose form (including Canada, Belgium etc as you say) or it should have a chart table. As long as the information is verifiable and we don't have a mass of data which goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. My suggestion to the nominator would be to go with prose and chose charts from countries which would be representative of world regions in terms of relative chart position and the size of the particular music markets. --JD554 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have also done some minor fixes which I think improve the text.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• • NOTE: You might like to know that I was googling and found an article by Alan McGee, who is fairly well-known in the UK: [4]. It looks like he has gotten most of his info from this article, IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Why is "Webcite.org" used instead of directly linking to the sources? Also, refrain from using reviews to cite factual information; reviews aren't news articles, and should be cited for their critical opinions only. Any factual information is best verified by the many, many books available on Nirvana. Additionally, I'm not too sure about the reliability of the Halperin book, and the reliance on the Sanderson book is odd as all Nirvana bios rely heavily on the Azerrad book; in most cases it functions as the original source of much of the information being cited. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Webcite.org is an archive network to archive web pages. I'm pretty sure reviews actually are reliable in that category. Publishers Weekly said the Halperin book was "Cobain's story, culled from more than 400 interviews with friends, family and colleagues and exclusive access to Cobain's unpublished diaries, sounds wholly ordinary..."[5] Sanderson's book has some quotes from Azerrad as well as some information based on it, but that won't effect the book's reliability. CrowzRSA 20:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not the Halperin book you're linking to, that's Charles Cross' Heavier Than Heaven, one of books you should be relying mostly on. You cite stuff on webcite.org that's published online in the first place, ie. Pitchfork, Popmatters. The directly links are available, so why not cite the original sources? A similar argument can be made for the Azerrad book. You really need to dig deeper source-wise. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh the Halperin book, well, he writes a lot of biographies, (verify) and if they really weren't reliable, wouldn't companies stop publishing his books? WebCite.org archives websites that often have dead links... I know the Rollingstone website has a lot of dead links, ([6]) and Billboard ([7]), so I didn't know if I should archive Pitchfork and PopMatters... CrowzRSA 01:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Use the original web URLs unless the link is dead. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree that direct linking is better. More generally, it would be good to use the best sourcing available but I think that, for the purposes of GA, what matters is that sources pass RS and that there is no clear case for saying that the sourcing in general is of poor quality. So please improve the sourcing, but I don't expect to be failing the article on the basis that editors have a view about which Nirvana biography is most authoritative. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding the GA process, though. --FormerIP (talk) 12:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you guys understand: once a link dies, it's really hard to fix it. That's why I archive them, so they — more or less — can't and don't die. CrowzRSA 19:27, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

There's no need to archive a link before it dies. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

But when it dies you can't archive it. CrowzRSA 16:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you can. In fact, there's a bot that goes around finding archived pages for dead links. No sense in linking to an archive of a page if the page itself is still active. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so how would you fix/archive [8]? CrowzRSA 19:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20080603134209/http://www.rollingstone.com/artists/slipknot/articles/story/5932670/slipknot_play_rollerball --JD554 (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: the citations need to be edited for consistency. A few of them are imcomplete as well. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't know you could do that... Well even though I don't know how it helps, but they're now direct links. The only reference I found missing anything was ref 20, and I fixed that... CrowzRSA 00:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really too sure on where the standards should be for notes. As far as I can tell from MoS, though, inconsistency here may be acceptable, given a mixture of frequently used sources and less frequently used ones. However, publisher info and page numbers are missing from a few of them. 48-51 I think should read in the style "Retrieved from: http://www.somewebsite.com".

Someone just added those, I fixed 'em. CrowzRSA 16:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

New comments

• Don't know how I missed this (maybe it is a result of a recent edit) but the second paragraph of "Promotion and release" has an incomplete sentence: "On December 1 1990."--FormerIP (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• Fixed

Can the review continue? I've done a lot of work in the article since the last response! igordebraga ≠ 23:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Crowz has said it is okay for other editors to participate in the review since he is busy with school (whether he is referring to track 4 on the album I do not know). If you look above, there are some unfinished discussions, which you are welcome to pick up on. Meanwhile, since some additional edits have been made, I'll take another look at the article. --FormerIP (talk) 23:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments

I just corrected the template as it was unclear who was the nominator and the reviewer. While here I thought I'd cast my eye over the article to give a fresh perspective. I understand all too well how GA reviews can drag on, and then both nominator and reviewer lose motivation. I have done a few, and the ones I hate are the long drawn out ones, and I always welcome fresh input myself. SilkTork *^YES! 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. 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:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• Prose is generally good, though there are places where meaning is not quite clear, or the writing could be tightened up. If prose hasn't been tightened up after one month, the options are that the reviewer does it, a request is made of Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, or the article is failed after giving the main contributors seven days to sort it out. The prose here is not that bad to fail the article by itself - it would depend on other factors. SilkTork *^YES! 18:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• MoS is a tricky one to pass first time. The usual fail is the lead. This has a very short lead that does not provide an appropriate stand alone overview of the subject. See WP:Lead. An earlier version of the article at the start of the review had a more appropriate lead. It may be worth considering returning to that lead, and seeing what else needs adding to it. As it stands at the moment, the lead does not meet GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 18:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Stable. There has been some minor issues with IP accounts - but less than average, and I see that there have been positive IP edits so the article doesn't need protecting. The article is stable enough for GA criteria. SilkTork *^YES! 18:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Images - there is one image which is appropriately tagged. SilkTork *^YES! 18:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral - prose is neutral. A difficult thing to achieve. SilkTork *^YES! 19:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Refs. There are cites, and these are organised in a Ref section. I haven't checked the sources. SilkTork *^YES! 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
• Coverage Broad coverage is always a tricky one - that involves a bit of background reading to ensure that nothing significant has been left out. I think this should be OK, but I wouldn't pass it until I have checked. There doesn't appear to be any sections that are too detailed - though I question the full listing of the live reissue. I think it is appropriate to mention that there is a live recording from 1990 without the need to list the tracks. However, I wouldn't fail the article because of that. SilkTork *^YES! 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

• Overall. I feel the article is quite close. I would insist that the lead is built to match the criteria in WP:Lead, and recommend a copyedit. While that was happening I would check sources for accuracy and broad coverage. I would put the article on hold for seven days to allow these matters to be attended to, and then either pass or fail. Good luck! SilkTork *^YES! 19:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I will copyedit the page in the next two days, as well as flag up any issues I may have with the page. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:24, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What makes [9] a reliable source? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, there's a lot of stuff about "Love Buzz" here that isn't directly relevant to the album, given it was released as a single before the band even recorded the album. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of "Recording" contains "Love Buzz" info and the song sample. The "Release and promotion" used to have something, but I guess someone took it off. CrowzRSA 02:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More needs to be said about the actual sound of "Love Buzz" in the sound sample box instead of who wrote it for the clip to be fully justified under fair use. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The references list says the Sanford book is from 2004, but the footnotes say the edition cited is from 1995. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone fixed this. CrowzRSA 02:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "After the album's release, Kmart distributed a selection of clothing that promoted the band, as well as the album" doesn't seem to fit the timeline in regards to "unknown band on an indie label Nirvana of 1989". Could someone with access to the source cited clarify this, and confirm whether or not this sentence belongs where it is currently placed? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe this has been fixed. CrowzRSA 02:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't fixed. I just removed the line about Kmart. It is completely impossible to be true given the timeline and most likely was inserted into the article as a joke/vandalism. --CAVincent (talk) 02:52, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Is everything done review-wise? Three reviews now and it seems ready to pass to me. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP hasn't contributed any since September 20th. I have a feeling he won't come back for a while. I don't see anything wrong with someone else passing it, unless it goes against WP:GA or something. CrowzRSA 15:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That's how it seems. I just wrapped up another review of his, so I'll look at this one over the next day or two. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

After reading the article over, I found no issues, aside from a bit of copyediting. As a result I will pass the article as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)