Talk:Dopethrone/GA1

GA Review

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: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 19:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll have this article reviewed within the next few days. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

This is really good, practically GA already. The only real issue is that there's some overquoting that should be paraphrased into your own words. As a side note, I usually listen to an album if I'm reviewing an article about it, and I'm definitely going to seek out more Electric Wizard after this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Nice! It is definitely not for everyone. I only gravitate to some of these kind of bands, but this one just makes me wish there was more like it. I really like their Come My Fanatics… for a follow-up! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

It's looking good. There are only two things that might need another look. First, the lead still doesn't have anything about what the album sounds like or what musical style it uses beyond "metal". A sentence about the type of metal, the bands that influenced it, and/or the "heaviness" that a few sources mentioned would be helpful. Second, each section still has a handful of quotes, and while a few are fine, it might be worth another read through to see if there are any quotes where the same meaning could be conveyed in different words. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Cool. I just added something a bit more about the sound in the lead. Hope that helps. Uhh as for the quotes, I feel like the Village Voice ones kind of nicely summarizes the "extremity" of the album and the appeal of it to people who might not be into this kind of music that others just describe as "really heavy!" As for the Kerrang! source, I don't have access to the material, but that quote is kind of...werid to me even? Are they just saying it's so slow it's boring to them? I don't want to re-phrase it too much as it's hard to gauge how they specifically feel about it without reinterpreting that kind of weird comparison too much. I've tried cutting out some later quotes to balance this out. How is that?Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll pass this as a GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Well-written

Really well-written overall. I usually have a lot of grammar notes when reviewing an article. I made a couple minor copyedits. There's a little choppiness in some of the sentences that could be ironed out, but not enough that it's a GA concern.

• The lead doesn't really cover anything from the "music" section.
• he did not care what other people said about the album at the time or at the present – "at the present" reads awkwardly in this sentence

  A bit. I shortened it up. Better? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Verifiable with no original research

All sources appear to be reliable.

• There are a lot of quotations in this article that could be paraphrased. Quotes are helpful if the specific wording is important, but over-quoting becomes a possible plagiarism issue. WP:RECEPTION provides good advice for preventing over-quotation in reception sections.

• Tried to re-handle this one. I went through WP:RECEPTION and i've only been a bit bothered by that one cause it implies you have a lot to work with to write something immediately (how many album reviews are just an allmusic link?). I try not to say things like "oh it received good reviews" when I can only pull from 4 or 5 sources, when there are probably other publications I don't have access to. Either way, I do think it needed a re-write here, I've left a few choice quotes in, but I think it is better now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Under the track listing, why is "Original Issue" cited but not "Remastered"?

Added a source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Spot checks:

• Dome (2011) – Checked all uses. Good except:
  • thrived on jamming – Either this needs to be in quotation marks or reworded.

re-phrased, i feel like "jam sessions" is fine enough for a music article. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• • who owned a couch made entirely of cannabis – The source says "dope", which doesn't guarantee he was talking about cannabis.

Fair, changed to dope. What a fun article to write. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

• Rise Above Records (2002) – All uses good.
• Kot (2001) – Both uses good.
• Stewart-Panko (2011) – Good.
• Rivadavia – All uses good except the source lists his name as Eduardo, not Ed.

Changed. Good catch. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Broad in its coverage

The production, the musical style, the release, and the reception are all adequately covered, which is what I expect of an album GA. The article does not go off topic at any point.

It meets the GA requirements, but there are further areas that could be covered if you wanted to make it more comprehensive or take it to FA:

• The article touches on the drug problems, disagreements, and other issues leading up to and during the production. If there's more info on this, background and production could be split into separate sections.
• The article does a good job covering the general musical style of the album, but it has very little information about the creative choices for specific songs.
• More retrospective coverage and/or information about the album's effect on the genre could allow for a "legacy" section to be split off from "reception".

Yeah. I've only found a few interviews or documents that go through historical periods of the band, since two of the major contributors aren't part of the group anymore (from what i've read, seems like Oborn was "in charge"). This book is apparently available (but Amazon says it's not out until January 2024?) Going to look into getting it at one point to see if more material could be added. As for retrospective material, I feel like retrospective reviews only kick in once a major contributor has died or some major re-issue of the album is made, but this album just seems to be quietly re-issued all the time by the minor label (perhaps it helps them stay afloat). As Oborn says "this is underground metal" it doesn't get much press outside niche sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:35, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Neutral

The article gives a fair description of the album and its reception.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

The album cover has a valid non-free use rationale. No other images.

Cool. I think I've covered everything @Thebiguglyalien: Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:18, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

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.