Talk:Maxinquaye/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: My name is not dave (talk · contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good day, I shall be reviewing this article. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 16:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is not in a desirable format. What one should expect first in the lead is the main facts of the album -- this takes heed for two factors, album name and artist, but it should follow onto release date, record label, producer and then location of production/recording. Instead, the date of the album's release is on the second paragraph and not in a summatory format. Move the most important facts to the front of the lead, then follow on from there.

According to who (should those items be in the front rather than in the second paragraph)? Dan56 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I know people don't like such a rationale, but it just doesn't seem right to me. If you look at any of my album or single articles (which are listed on my user page), that is always how I've done it. The lead, as a summary, should prioritise facts first. Many other albums seem to follow such a format as well. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

What isn't a fact that's mentioned in the lead? The first sentence should not describe "everything notable about the subject", just a concise description for a nonspecialist reader. "Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." (WP:BEGIN). The rest of this article's lead as is summarizes the article in chronological order and the order in which it appears in the rest of the article, which is logical and consistent. Introducing the release date and record label in the first sentence or first few sentences is anachronistic. Dan56 (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it's important to have a who-what-where-why-when-how lead (not that it needs to be in that order or include all of those points if not necessary), and if there are any detail that is worth mentioning in the lead, then leave that to the last -- when there is an expectation that information should be chronological (i.e. timelines, events etc.) then it can be kept in a chronological format. However, I simply don't believe that readers will take into account the general flow of the article and reflect that upon the flow of the lead. I don't think that the MoS rule you have quoted is very applicable to albums, where the main information is title, artist, date etc etc. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 20:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how this format you're partial to became so popular on Wikipedia articles, but it's still very OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-like, and I don't see any reason outside of that to force it here. Why should it be the release year that's force up front and not the recording year, when it could be argued that's more relevant to establishing the time period of a creative work's creation? Your idea of what's the main info for album articles is subjective IMO. The first sentence is supposed to define the article topic, and the date of its release doesn't define it in any way. The album's been reissued several times in different years. Dan56 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• It would be desirable if the UK Albums Chart would be mentioned and wikilinked where it says "it charted at number three in the United Kingdom", perhaps replacing 'United Kingdom' with the UK Albums Chart.

Desired by who?? WP:MOS emphasizes internal consistency of style; all chart names are referred to by country demonym (i.e. French, Irish, British, etc.) Dan56 (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Desired by myself :) Apologies, this is my first attempt at a GA review, and even if it wasn't the first, my style of criticism is very subjective. In this case, my rationale here is what UK chart? We can only assume that is the weekly UK albums chart, but it is better to be mentioned in the lead than it is to be assumed. I would emphasise my perhaps here: and as a compromise nevertheless, the United Kingdom mention can stay alongside a mention of a UK Albums Chart. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:52, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

The name "UK Albums Chart" is meaningless in and of itself. It's not even the actual name of the chart (which is now the "Official Albums Chart", and I'm not sure what it was called in 1995), and it would be repetitive if alongside "United Kingdom", IMO. Dan56 (talk) 18:58, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Taking a second look at the sentence, would it be most beneficial to write it as "it charted at number three in the United Kingdom's album chart"? ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Background section

• The content of the section seems to concern Tricky more than the album itself. It doesn't link much to Maxinquaye, even the mention of the song "Aftermath" is not linked to the fact that a) it was reissued as a single before the album's release and b) it appears as a song on the album. Not to say that the content currently doesn't support the album, but link it back to the main subject -- the album.

I connected it somewhat, although background on an artist's start in music overlapping in an article on his first record seems like appropriate summary style. Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Point taken, but it does seem a bit isolated. Nonetheless, I think your edits to the section have ensured it fits in well. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• As above, some of the content in the "Recording and production" section seems to fit the "Background" section, notably the choice of the album's name.

The (brief) discussion of the title is connected in that section to the music and Tricky's use of female vocalists. There's no reason to interpret this as "background" when it would sever the readability and flow of the prose in that paragraph. Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a small mention of the name's relation to his mother could be mentioned at the end of the lead. But that's your pick. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 19:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I considered it once, but two sources are cited as saying different things, so there would be a POV-issue: "Tricky explained Maxinquaye's title in an interview with Simon Reynolds: 'Quaye, that's this race of people in Africa, and 'Maxin,' that's my mum's name, Maxine, and I've just taken the E off'. In another source, he was reported as saying Quaye had also been his mother's surname.^[12]" Dan56 (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

• Reference no.5 doesn't back the text that it is applied to. However, reference 4 does -- and in fact, reference no.5 seems somewhat redundant, as ref 4 is good enough for all the text on that paragraph going up "'Yeah, this is Tricky's house, jump in through the window.'".

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Recording and production section

• A minor rewording of "The producer Saunders contributed guitar himself" on the second paragraph could help - either omitting "the producer" or shuffling "the producer" to place it after "Saunders" to make "Saunders, as producer, contributed guitar himself".

Done. Dan56 (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

• No major referencing problems

Release and reception section

• There are no major problems with this section.

Citation check

• No major problems

Track listing section

• Include total length for convenience?

"Not necessary in most cases (as that information will usually be covered by an infobox), but useful in some (e.g., releases with a lot of individual discs)." (Template:Track listing) Dan56 (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

• No major problems

Personnel section

• No major problems

Citation check

• No major problems

Charts section

• Are there any other charts where Maxinquaye charted -- year-end charts, other countries etc?

No year-end charts I know of. I would assume it'd have to have sold way more in 1995 to have ended up on one. Dan56 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Citation check

• No major problems

Overall...

This article is looking promising! It seems to be a matter of taste when it comes to the lead, I think we've gone past the stage of convincing each other, so better hold it there. So, it passes. Pleasure to go over the article with you. If this wants to go to FA, then I think there needs to be more content on the article. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 08:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)