Talk:Jorge Ben (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 00:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello! I'd like to review this album article! - 100cellsman (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• The instances of the album title Jorge Ben within the article prose should be called "eponymous album", otherwise this would be confusing to distinguish between the album and the artist.
  • That's silly. The album is the primary topic of the article, not the singer, who is referred to throughout as "Ben" (not "Jorge Ben") or "the singer". Your own citation to the essay WP:ELEVAR (the section on "Titular or eponymous") says "Readers can see when the character's name is in the title. You don't need to tell them." And you made the distinction yourself clear when you knew to italicize the title in your above comment, because you understood works of art are italicized and the italics make it clear to you it is the album and not the singer. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• The word "hit" is informal.
  • Yes, but no more than "singles", which is a cute industry term for single-song release. But that would be too technical and less straightforward for readers (WP:TECHNICAL#Avoid overly technical language). And "hit song" or "hit single" has a deeper connotation in the context of the music industry ([1]) than its vague association with "commercial success". There is a reason why the phrase appears in countless of other encyclopedic writing. It is a certain kind of measurement of commercial success. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Ben shouldn't be referred to as "the singer" per WP:ELEVAR.
  • WP:ELEVAR "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." In certain instances in this article, using the pronoun "him" in the context discussing more than one "him" would be ambiguous, while using "Ben" in a paragraph full of "Ben"'s, or multiple mentions of it in the same sentence, makes it a repetitive read. There is nothing inherently wrong grammatically or writing-wise about referring to him as "the singer", especially for the purpose of defining the subject clearly while avoiding repetition and improving the flow of the prose. This is a judgement or nuance call, and no guideline supports banishing the phrase altogether, but I have reduced it a bit where it feels unnecessary. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• "This caught the interest of Philips" I thought Philips was a surname at first. Maybe use "Philips Records" again?
  • I added "Records" to the first instance of "Philips" in each new section. But a competent reader, who is reading a new section, ought to know after the first mention that "Philips" refers to the record label, especially considering there is no other "Philips" mentioned in the article. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• "the album was produced with sound effects that were "state of the art" at the time." the source does not explicit say that verve made that statement. Also, an explanation of what the sounds were would be nice, otherwise the entire statement comes off a bit peacock-ey. not sure if the source is entirely reliable as well.
  • The product blurbs come from the record labels distributing the CDs, which in the Jorge Ben CD reissue was Verve; it appears on other retailer sites as well. And, although besides the point, Grimey's is a reputable record store with a knowledgeable staff. And, I wish there was more information on the sounds and production, too. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• "Jorge Ben's music is defined by what Brazilian music aficionado Greg Caz called a..." This is a bit awkward because again, the album name may be confused with the artist name, plus aficionado is a bit of a stretch. I suggest re-writing this as "Greg Caz from Okayplayer wrote that the album primarily consists of a..." so it is more concise.
  • I did not make it up that he's an expert in Brazilian music; various reliable sources make that clear. And introducing a new section, or even a new paragraph, with the primary topic in the opening clause makes for stronger language, and again, this kind of phrasing is acceptable by encyclopedic stands elsewhere. But I have revised it to "The album's music..." Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• The link to ref 12 may either be broken or the website is just being stupid.
  • Link rot. I've replaced it. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• "The album was released at the height of the controversial Tropicália movement" Again, not sure if Grimey's is a reliable source for this statement.
  • See above. Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Really satisfied with the article overall! I've only had to give a few suggestions. 100cellsman (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. But I think many of the items you unlinked are better off linked. For example, I understand the average American or British reader, and even one with a special interest in music, will know what comics and orchestras are -- "Everyday words understood by most readers in context." (MOS:OVERLINK) -- but it is less likely they will be familiar with magic realism or arrangements, terms that, in the context of their places in the article, offer relevant connections and a greater understanding to the article's content (MOS:UNDERLINK). Dan56 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit it, you gave me some pretty solid arguments with my suggestions. But I don't want to be one to call up for a second opinion. The article overall is great as is, so I'm going to go ahead and pass it. 100cellsman (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)