Talk:1980 (album)/GA1
• In the research world, there is a good practice method to know if an article is appropriate for its publication. It is called the Five Ws: The researcher(s) must ask themselves before publishing their paper if the article satisfies the 5 questions—who, what, where, when and why, plus how if required. The article answers 4/6 questions: what (a jazz-funk, disco, dance), when (1980), who (Scott-Heron, Jackson, et al.) and how (#Recording and production). The article, however, does not answer the questions where (it never mentions the recording studio, for example) and why. As I mentioned, this is the sixth album both artist collaborate on, one of those albums was Winter in America, which is a Good article, includes a Background, and was nominated by the same author of 1980, so I don't have to explain the importance of such sections.
• In fact, such sections are so important that I took some time to see other Good albums articles at WP:GA/Music. Most of them does include Background sections (some call them "History", "Plot", "Pre-production", etc.). For those that don't have Background sections, like Tago Mago, Taking Tiger Mountain (By Strategy) or Here Come the Warm Jets, those where nominated and approved a decade ago, and their GA status can be challenged as they include unsourced information and dead links. So no, I don't buy the excuse that there is no information about the album nor Scott-Heron nor Jackson. There is no information on your Google research, but there is information at your local library. I find it unbelievable that this specific 1980 album lacks of book and magazine commentary, when at the time those were the only ways it could have been reported, Also, it's unlikely to be true that only 16 sources discuss the album (12 online, 4 offline—including the album's booklet) when the article makes clear it received a favorable critical and commercial response. How is that all these older albums have backgrounds and more sources than 1980: a live album, a soundtrack, a compilation album, God, a Latin American album, do you have any idea how hard is to find reliable/acceptable pre-2000 Latin American/Spanish sources?
• Santa Clause Lane was rejected 3 times from being a good article. What it lacked? A critical reception section. That nominator used the same excuse Dan tried to use here ("[I cannot include] information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources"). Of course you cannot invent sources, however, like, Santa Clause Lane, there is a particular scent of not wanting to do your job. Why I say this: SCL looked like this after its 3rd nomination. If you compare both articles, it is clear the current version is more likely to be a Good Article than the 2010 version. The sources that were added to the current Critical response section didn't exist when it failed its GANs? No, in fact the sources are from 2004, What happened? The same that's happening here, an author that believes he's right because he doesn't want to do his job, and instead of fixing the issues, he wastes his time making personal attacks on the person who is not giving him his Green button. Which, by the way Dan, I have received death threats for merely being here. So, if you believe that calling me lazy, presumtive and troublesome has any impact on me try again, as I have received edgier insults from 13-year old video game players. Which further adds why I didn't ask for a second opinion. If the person agrees with me, that person will, as well, be insulted. So, instead of that, the person or people who decide to re-review this article are already warned by this nomination closure.
• To conclude I fail
the nomination. You have the right to re-nominate it or to request a Good article reassessment. However, whichever way you decide, the reasons I enlisted here have to be considered when being re-reviewed.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.
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 16:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
- B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
- Fails MOS:LINKQUOTE. Not a reasonable reason given to hyperlink a monarch when the text is ambiguous and lacks context to justify such assertion.
- A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
- C. No original research:
- Two instances of original research, one was fixed reluctantly and the other still in the article. Despite the fact that "Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever" mentions a 1980 song, Christgau never discussed any particular title. If the article 1980 mentioned that "Shot 'Um Down" is an anti-nuclear and the original source was Christgau alone, WP:SYNTH applied. Thankfully for the readers, other sources exist.
- D. No copyright violations:
- A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- See the big white box on the right
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
- A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
- A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
| Resolved comments from Tbhotch |
|---|
;Image
|
- Background
- It is missing. Considering this is their 6th album together, there is information about it.
- "Background" sections are not compulsory. And that is presumptive; where does this information exist and what exactly does it discuss? Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice#Background. Presumptive or not, I, as a reader, don't know the reason(s) why this album exists. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- You are showing me a guide that concedes it is "a list of possible sections," rather than necessary sections. The music and lyrics sections have some background on their previous work, ideas, etc. The album exists because it was recorded and released. If there is any more information relevant as "background" to this album, it does not exist in the literature. Scott-Heron's career has not been a deeply-covered topic; even AllMusic's skimpy bio has major errors like naming 1978 as the year Jackson left their recording partnership. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- The awful stub that existed before your first edit here had a source not present anymore. That means there are more than 16 sources out there. I cited the wording "as a reader I am not reading why the album exists". Therefore, the article fails Point 3a. "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic". © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Did you bother to read the source (Umoji Sasa) you are referring to, Mr. Reviewer? It's an album review, offering more of the same for the themes section (lyrics, song analysis). The source, by the way, is a "campus newspaper". So, yes, you are definitely being presumptive, and lazy; if you are gonna make a big stink about this, you should have your ducks in a row. Dan56 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Point (a) means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects. (Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not) Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. (Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not) Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- If there is more to this album's coming to existence than what is already explained (recording, inspiration behind themes, the label releasing it), then it's out of the scope for this article and its sources. Your feeling--that what is already explained does not sufficiently explain "why the album exists"--is a personal criteria that's irrelevant to good-article reviewing. And if you cannot help from imposing your personal criteria in this review, ask for a second opinion, or recuse yourself, and I will re-open for someone who is better equipped to handle reviewing this article. Dan56 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Themes
- ""Shut 'Um Down" features an anti-nuclear message" -> From source: " Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever."
- Are you doubting the "antinuke" reference is to "Shut Um Down"? I've added a ranking from The Nation to the last section ("anti-nuclear songs"). Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- I am doubting the part where "Shut 'Um Down" is labeled as "anti-nuclear"/"antinuke", when the source does not mention the title of the song. Pitchfork, however, does it. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- Some intuitiveness is required (there's no other song on the album to touch nuclear power), but whatever; I'll replace the source. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- So, you were asking readers to accept original thinking once again. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- "It is not original research to contextualize a possibly misleading quotation, provided this is done accurately and neutrally." It was accurate. Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Just drop it, in itself it is original research. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- "subjects include ... the shah (dead)," -> Is Christgau talking about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
- The reference could be to Pahlavi but also to the title of "shah", which would have been "dead" (abolished) by the time Christgau's review was published (March 1980); Pahlavi was literally dead a few months later (July). According to the Wikipedia article on Pahlavi: Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "The Shah". Which appears to be reflected in the sources there. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- So, the wikilink is original research. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
- "Accurately contextualizing quotations" is not original research; I also pipe-linked "aliens" to refer to alien (law) (Should this be controversial, too?). But for "the shah," I merely linked the phrase bare, and did not create the redirect myself. You are free to redirect the shah elsewhere if you disagree with admin Kingturtle's original decision to have the title redirect to Pahlavi's article. Or suggest another idea as to how to handle it. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- From MOS:LINKQUOTE: "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." By "Aliens" Christgau is not talking about spatial creatures, or is he? Also, "I didn't do it" is not a justification, because you decided to link it without verifying where it went or what it meant. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with where it went. I agree that Christgau is referring to "the shah". I agree that "the shah" refers to Pahlavi. If you have a specific question or demand, as a reviewer, I'm all ears. Dan56 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unless you want to continue giving problems, not solutions, again... Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- Unless you are Christgau himself, you cannot speak for him. And Shah has multiple meeanings to believe you are right. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
- to seem retro - they want to move on -> Replace the dash
- Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Article on hold. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 21:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)