Talk:Guitar Solos/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • Does the numbering of side two really begin at 5? Every record I've seen starts at 1...

   I've adjusted the numbers to start from 1. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • The "CD re-issues" and "Release history" sections need to be combined into a prose section. I know WP:ALBUM outlines a "Release history" section, but the table is only applicable to albums with many notable released versions, where the information is impractical to convey by prose. Here, all that's necessary is a prose summary that details the original vinyl album and the two CD reissues. Was there anything special about the 1981 Japanese version? If not, there's no need to mention it, as Wikipedia is not a directory.

   I've combined the 2 sections. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • Your assertion that the album "was considered a landmark" is based on one reviewer's calling the album "landmark". That's misleading; you need to show that numerous other reviewers agreed before you can say that. And the additional clause "When Guitar Solos was first released" makes the statement wholly unsubstantiated, as the Allmusic review was not written before 1991.

   I've corrected the use of these statements. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • You have an external link (the interview) that easily could be incorporated into the article...and should be, per WP:EL.

   Deleted - it only made a passing reference to this album. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Really? I listened to some of the interview and I think there are some relevant quotes there...

   • The other external link is already being used as a reference...no need to list it again.

   Removed. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • What makes that discography site reliable in the first place? At any rate, all that information is self-referential to the releases, so it doesn't need to be cited. Same with the "Personnel" section.

   I've removed the redundant citations. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • Major aspects: see end of this review

   There's not much more I can do here to enhance the "reader's experience". The problem is that this an experimental album and not a main-stream release, and there just isn't that much written about it that can be backed up with reliable sources. But please see the original reviewer's response below to this point. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Did you search print sources? I searched a few databases through my university library and found that relevant articles are out there...didn't have online access to most of them, however.

   • The only print source I have is the January 1983 issue of Down Beat, which I have referenced. I'll scratch around and see if I can find some more, but my access to library databases is limited. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

   I've expanded three of the sections, which hopefully will enhance the "reader's experience". --Bruce1ee^talk 08:14, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

   • Focused: The Fred Records chronology is unnecessary; we don't do chronologies for record labels...probably because they offer no insight.

   Removed. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

   • There's a bot working on removing unnecessary alternate album covers. The CD cover in this article qualifies, and will be removed automatically if you don't do it yourself.

   Removed. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

   • The fair use rationale and caption of the music sample need to be beefed up. See WP:SAMPLE for the guidelines, and Lions (album) for some examples of how I did it in a featured article.

   I've adjusted the FUR and caption of the music sample. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

The biggest problem with the article is that I just didn't learn a lot about the album by reading it. Check the "Reader's experience" column on this page; which one best describes this article? Right now, I'd have to say "C". Best of luck in addressing these issues; I'd be happy to see this remain a good article. —Zeagler (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please see my responses and actions above. --Bruce1ee^talk 10:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for putting some more work into this. We'll keep the GA status. Couple things to check when you get around to it:

• I reformatted the album notes reference with Template:Cite album-notes and you'll want to make sure I made the correct interpretation with respect to 'format' and 'publisherid'.
• "The only sounds not produced by guitar..." – isn't the guitar needed to produce sound through a fuzzbox or an echo delay? —Zeagler (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for the tidying up you've been doing, and for keeping the GA status. The 'format' and 'publisherid' in the 'Cite album-notes' template are correct. I've rechecked the sleeve notes and it says "... not produced 'naturally' by guitar ..." I've added the missing "naturally" to that statement in the article. --Bruce1ee^talk 08:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments from original reviewer

Apologies to the editor for missing some bits and pieces in my original review which seems to have caused this reassessement. Zeagler's comment about the description of the album as a "landmark" release is, of course, right and I really should have noticed. That said I could not disagree more about the assertion that the reader would not learn a lot from this atricle - I had never heard of Fred Firth or Guitar Solos when I did the original review and would personally rate the article 'A' as a non-expert in the subject matter. Cavie78 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

That you hadn't heard of Frith might make you the "casual reader" mentioned in the C-class standard. I'm a little bit more familiar with Frith, and I found this article does "not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study". For me, it raised a lot of questions. Examples:

• "In 1974...Virgin Records (Henry Cow's record label) approached Frith and suggested that he make an album of guitar solos." Why?
• "Frith obliged...." Why? Why these kind of guitar solos? Is that what Virgin had in mind?
• The "Recording" section describes how Frith prepared his guitars. I'd like to read more about the creative process. Did he try things that didn't work? How did he decide whether or not his experiments were successful? All this creativity demands quotations from the artist in order to get inside his head.
• What does this album sound like? Right now, the only description we have (other than the music sample) is "haunting". More descriptions from critics would be helpful.

—Zeagler (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm a musician and guitarist so I think "non-expert" is about right. These questions are interesting but I think you're being very harsh on the article. This isn't FA lite and the article seems to me to be more than adequate for GA. Cavie78 (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)