Talk:Late Registration/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements, though if there is a lot of work needed I may suggest getting a copy-editor. Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:06, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Pass. Article is listed as a Good Article. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images and sounds are tagged or have fair use rationales. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• No edit wars, but there is a fair amount of reverting of edits by IP and recent accounts (at least one of which I notice has now been blocked). It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get a lot of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do you feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Has appropriate reference section SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Major aspects. Article covers in depth all the areas that a reader would expect to see in a general encyclopaedia entry on the album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• No area is covered in appreciably greater depth or detail than any other, so there is a balanced feel throughout. There is, however, a tendency to be a little effuse - the enthusiasm for the album extends not just to the tone of the prose, but also in the amount of what is said. It can be a little gushing. That would be pleasant for someone who is a fan of the album, but may be off-putting for someone looking for a summary of the main points. I do think it is very hard to write an appropriate encyclopedia entry on a topic that one is interested in to the point of enthusiasm. But the dilemma for Wikipedia, is that without enthusiastic writers much content would not get written at all. I think that is where audits such as GA and FA are useful. In this case I do not think the amount of material is so excessive as to exceed GA criteria, but as a matter for ongoing development, attention could be given to making the article more concise. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have taken out one image - I think the remaining images are OK as they are of people directly involved in the album; though the matter may be debated, and someone else may disagree. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I have done some more copy-editing. There will always be more improvements that can be made to an article, and looking to ensure the article remains both neutral and easily understood will be part of ongoing development, but as regards Ga criteria, this is now acceptable as regards the prose. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• Article is richly cited. I've not been able to check out my one quibble below, but I'm not going to hold up the review just on that issue, when everything else checks out. As part of ongoing development it would be worth looking to see if there are other sources which say the same thing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• With the copy-editing, the article is now more neutral. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• OR issues now resolved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
• I've removed the list template, and some non-notable content from the Personnel list in order to meet the GA criteria. As this material is popular, someone may replace it in the article now that the GA review is finished. That is not a problem for me. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Query

• Images have appropriate captions, but I am querying if all the images are relevant. The article is about the album, and yet we have three images of the artist - two on his own, and one with another performer - and none of these images is in relation to the making of the album. An image, such as this one used in Otis Blue: Otis Redding Sings Soul, would be of encyclopedic interest, but I am wondering the value of the current images, other than to break up the text. It may be that some sections are quite long, and this may be daunting for the general reader, so I understand the thinking in wanting to break them up - but I wonder if there is some other way that could be done? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:51, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Prose. I have been through some of the article tidying up the prose. On the whole the prose is clear and readable, but it does tend in places to use jargon or slang phrases, is sometimes unclear, and can be a little over enthusiastic (which is also a bias/NPOV issue). As copy-editing is proving a little time-consuming, I feel that some assistance is needed - could you either look through yourself, or ask a copy-editor to get involved. Phrases like "revered as the best album of the year" should be toned down to "listed as the best album of the year", etc. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
• Cites. The article is richly cited, enough that this is a very minor quibble, but "On Late Registration, West eschewed his characteristic sped-up soul style" doesn't have a cite, and the three sources used in the paragraph - [1], [2], and [3] - don't support it. I've not encountered any other problems so far. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
• OR. Another really minor quibble, and this is to do with tone and interpretation of sources. Some statements, such as "the tribute song "Hey Mama", dedicated to his mother Donda West, and ""Hey Mama" is West's dedication to his mother, Donda West", are not supported by sources for the terms "tribute" or "dedication". The picture I am getting of the article is that it is well researched and presented, and broadly accurate; the quibbles I have are mostly to do with the tone and wording of the prose. I think a copy edit will resolve all issues. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Whose opinion is being given here: "The end result is a more diverse, ornate, polished production that retains a multi-layered, cinematic texture with a particularly heightened emphasis on instrumental passages and extended codas."? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This statement - "Music writers have also noted the genre-defying styles and sudden musical shifts present within the song structures as reminiscent of The Beatles during their experimental era." is cited to Serena Kim. Without a cite saying "Music writers" it would be better to say - "Serena Kim", and to word it so that Wikipedia is not agreeing with her - Perhaps: Serena Kim in a September 2005 review for Vibe magazine felt that "many songs ... have abrupt musical shifts reminiscent of the Beatles’ experimental stage". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

• NPOV. Needs a copy edit to tone down the language into something more neutral and encyclopaedic. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Fail

• Lists comes under criteria 1B. The Personnel list is rather long, and includes a considerable amount of detail on non-notable personnel. The relevant guideline says: "it is expected that the information will be supported elsewhere in the article by prose analysis of the main points, and that if the lists become unwieldy, they are split off into stand-alone lists". I do not see the personnel list of this album as being appropriate for a stand alone article, nor do I see appropriate discussion of all these people elsewhere in the article. I am conscious that when passing an article as a Good Article, that it can then be used as a model for future articles, so I wish to take extra care. I do not see the value to anyone (other than friends and relatives) of listing the non-notable people who played instruments on the album. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I suspect that both this article and other articles looking to this one as an example would be better off with removing all non-notable and otherwise non-mentioned individuals. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:46, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As an occasional editor to this article, I dont know how to weigh one contributor's importance against another, but at the very least, the "composers" should be removed, as recommended at WP:ALBUMS/STYLE#Personnel: "a reiteration of the songwriters included on the album ... including it is redundant to the songwriter credits in the track listing." Dan56 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• The Professional ratings template also fails 1B (lists). I understand that these templates are popular and widespread, and they do serve a use when an article is being developed, but they are against the criteria. What happens after the review is another matter, but it would be inappropriate for me to pass an article which does not meet the criteria on an matter which can be resolved with a quick edit. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 20:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

What in particular about the "MoS compliance" of this list is against the criteria? It's no more popular than chart tables, as an aspect of the style guide at WP:ALBUMS/STYLE#CRITICAL ("the text may be supplemented" with this template). Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The 1B MoS criteria includes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists, which says: "Prose is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a simple list may not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should normally be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed." I understand they are popular, but as they divert attention away from the encyclopedic content and do not belong in quality articles (though they have their place in developing articles) I find it hard to justify ignoring them when doing an audit. As people hold up GA and FA articles as models of what to aim for, it would be inappropriate to pass as a Good Article one containing something that is against the criteria, and against the drive to improve article content in Wikipedia. At the stage when an article is being nominated for GA all the relevant detail from the template should be explained and summarised in prose. If the article needs to rely on the template to convey pertinent information then it is failing. If the purpose of the template in this article is to show that most critics rated the album highly, then the first sentence of the section does that: "Late Registration received rave reviews from contemporary music critics." If there is some additional information that the template conveys, then that should be stated in the prose. If the idea is that a reader may easily and quickly go outside of Wikipedia to read the reviews, then that is against WP:ELMAYBE and against policy - WP:NOTLINK. The aim of Wikipedia is to summarise human knowledge, not to provide links to other sites. There is no place for the template in a decently written article. However, I understand that some editors like them. My solution is that the template is removed while doing the GAN. What happens after the review is another matter. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ALBUMS/STYLE, this template should be accepted and any argument against it is not appropriate here but there. Your opinion is that it does not belong in a decently written article, as is your intepretation of 1b. The template is an appropriate use of a list, as is the use of a chart table, which you did not have a problem with; both place things into their proper context: the reviewers' criticism, the album's sales. The template conveys the ratings, which if written in prose would not flow. The charts convey how albums' sales compared to one another on a given week; why not eliminate chart positions if all they do is supplement how much an album sold in a week, if the latter is already provided by Billboard? Point is, you shouldnt be bringing this up here. The guideline you cited does not address this template, WP:ALBUMS/STYLE does, so follow the guideline that addresses what you are addressing. Dan56 (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my tone, but this has been belabored at the talk page for the template, and it's gotten kind of annoying. Since WP:ALBUMS/STYLE says it may be used to convey the ratings (which is better than writing them out in prose and leaving less space for quoted material/criticism), and there's the one you cited (although I dont see how this is a "list of links"; the internal links or the citations?), WP:MOS recommends to "defer to the style used by the first major contributor", and this would seem like something for editorial judgement or preference (see In Utero (album) and my proposed changes at the talk page, which were declined by the major contributor, and I respected that). The contributor here is User:Bruce Campbell, who I think is on a Wikibreak, but I notified him of this at his talk page. Dan56 (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

No worries about tone - I'd rather you spoke your mind; I always encourage people to share their views and objections. I recall we had a recent discussion about the way that the rating template combines contemporary and legacy reviews. I have since used your idea. In my day to day editing I often update articles containing the template with wayback links when the template cites are dead. I do see a use for the template when an article is being developed. However, I do feel that by the time an article is of the standard of a GA or FA, the template is no longer required, and does not meet the GA criteria. However, as you say, this is not the best place to be having this debate, and it's not an important one, as it is a simple matter to remove the template at the point of listing, and for someone else to replace it at a later point. It doesn't impact on the article or the review in any meaningful way. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:28, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

General comments

• I'm listening to the album on MySpace as I'm doing the review, and I'm really enjoying Gold Digger! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Hold

This is an informative and interesting article, utilising a range of sources. It is richly detailed, providing more than sufficient breadth and depth for the general reader. The concerns I have identified above are mainly in the same area - that of tone. The article is essentially sound, but the language in places is a little over enthusiastic. A copy edit to make the article a little more sober and encyclopaedic, and to cut back on the image use, would resolve matters. On hold for an initial seven days. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Picking up BruceCampbell's nomination; copy-edited, changed/removed images, removed flimsy prose with these edits. Will these suffice or is there anything else to cleanup? Dan56 (talk) 22:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for delay in responding. I'll take a look now. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:55, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Pass

Article is now passed as a Good Article. Well done to everyone involved. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)