Talk:Ice Hockey Hair/GA1

GA Review

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

'b-side' should be 'B-side' Done
'number 2' → 'number two' per WP:ORDINAL
- I'm pretty sure it's fine in this context (see WP:HASH that has No. 1 as a "correct" example. Also, compare with FA Kid A. (Some FAs have it the other way too).--BelovedFreak 14:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
  - Done My thoughts too, but have changed anyways Cavie78 (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

The captions of the sound files are very long. One sentence will suffice. Instead, you should elaborate on the musical composition details in the prose; there is not much detail of this. Also, the titles of the files are too long. The artist should definitely be removed, and the year at then end is up to you (I prefer to exclude it).
- I appreciate what you mean but there's not really much more to say on musical composition. I decided not to have a dedicated 'Music' section as the 'Recording and themes' includes all the quotes I could find from the band and one of the songs on the EP is just a remix while the other is an instrumental. I don't think the captions are excessive - I've seen much longer captions on FAs. I'd rather not change the files names I'm afraid - they are meaningful and I can't find anything that suggests they're unacceptable (see Wikipedia:Image file names)
  - When I said the 'names' I meant the header over the file in the article (ie the first one which is 'Super Furry Animals "Ice Hockey Hair" (1998)' can simply be '"Ice Hockey Hair"'. Sorry for the miscommunication. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    - Ah, sorry my bad! Cavie78 (talk) 10:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Link NME Done
"awarding Ice Hockey Hair 'single of the week'" - would they not be referring to the song here? If so, it needs to be place in quote marks, not italics
- They are referring to the EP as a whole (until the early 2000s EPs appeared in the singles charts in the UK)
  - I think you should mention this quickly in the article for clarity. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
The 'Accolades' section should be in prose only
- Accolades sections appear in lots of music articles including FAs. I include information in the prose but I see nothing wrong with also having a table.

This section is very long considering it is almost all plot summary
- I am aware of this and have already trimmed the "Smokin'" section but it's hard to do with "Ice Hockey Hair"
Has there been no critical commentary on either video?
- Unfortunately not. The British music press (who would be most likely to comment) don't really provide criticism of music videos, even for much bigger bands.
Are these videos even relevant to the EP?
- I don't see why they wouldn't be to be honest.

Sources?
- Track listings don't require sources. I know there's been some debate about this recently but I've searched through several FA music articles and I can't find any that include cites. See No Line on the Horizon and Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire) for relatively recent examples.
You could {{col-2}} these Done

Source?
- Done Again I don't think this needs a cite but it's less clear cut than track listings so have included.

This should be in prose, under a 'Chart performance' or 'commercial reception' section
- It already is - see comments about the 'Accolades' table.

You need to provide the ISSN number of the NME magazines that do not have links
- This isn't a requirement at GA, see WP:WIAGA
Allmusic, Drowned in Sound, BBC and Pitchfork Media should not be in italics Done
- The template automatically formats into italics, there's nothing I can do about this.
  - You can use the publisher field rather than the work field. Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
    - Didn't realise that sorry, have changed.