I'll take a look and start to leave some comments within the next few days. I am taking on board a batch of reviews, so it may be some time before I start to comment. I am also by nature a fairly slow and thorough reviewer who likes to check out sources, so this is unlikely to be quick. However, I am always willing to help out on the editing, and will make direct minor adjustments myself rather than list them. I always welcome discussion, and see the review process as entirely collaborative. SilkTork✔Tea time16:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for taking this on SilkTork. I am relatively free in terms of editing at the moment, so I should be able to help deal with any fixable issues relatively quickly. I look forward to the comments.--SabreBD (talk)21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
While checking the history I noted that there has been a fair amount of reverting of IP and new accounts; I can semi-protect the article against vandalism, though am aware that on some articles IP accounts can add valuable content, so there is a judgement decision to be made by regular contributors: do the positive contributions by IP accounts outweigh the nuisance edits? Are folks here willing to carry on watching and reverting? SilkTork✔Tea time16:28, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I went back through the diffs as far as the merger and I don't think there was a single positive edit. However, for myself, I prefer not to protect unless traffic is very happy. I think this article has enough regular editors to keep it in pretty good shape. However, others may disagree.--SabreBD (talk)17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
This might break the rules since it is not about "this" article but if any consideration should be given to protecting articles that time and effort should go to genre "list" articles. You will see reverting of IP is a much much more common occurrence. As for this article I agree it is under control at this point. Edkollin (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I probably changed this to notes because to me these are notes and not references, i.e. unsorted details with a page number. To me references are something like the results of the sfn system that give a list of publications in alphabetical order. I cannot see where WP:FOOTERS disagrees with that interpretation, but I could be wrong. I should add that I don't really care about this, so if you want to change it back please feel free.--SabreBD (talk)17:30, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for delay in finishing this review. It was a rather ambitious batch of GANs I took on, and I haven't had as much free time (and energy) to work on all of them as I had hoped. I know how frustrating it is to wait for two months for a GA review, and then for that review to move very slowly! I should be able to focus on this in the next day or so. SilkTork✔Tea time20:59, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Definition of "synthpop" / lead sentence. The lead sentence is perhaps a bit vague on the definition of synthpop. There are sources, such as Allmusic and the Oxford Dictionary, which define it as an 80s musical style, and a quick look at sources on Google Books would bear that out. Has there been a recent edit which has removed mentioned of the 80s? That would make sense, as the second sentence doesn't quite work otherwise - there seems to be an assumption in the second sentence that the 80s is understood. SilkTork✔Tea time16:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Tubeway Army, a little known outfit from West London, who dropped their punk rock image and adopted synthesizers," - is the bit I've marked in italics really needed? SilkTork✔Tea time16:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I don't think so, its not very neutral language, although we should perhaps retain something about their punk origins. I will check the sources for some wording.--SabreBD (talk)08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
"This prompted their lead singer, Gary Numan, to go solo." Not clear what prompted him. I assume it's the success of "Are Friends Electric?" rather than the band using synthesizers or being little known. And is it accurate? My understanding is that the only real difference was that Numan changed from recording under the name Tubeway Army, to recording under the name Gary Numan. SilkTork✔Tea time16:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I think you are right that the success is intended. Perhaps the best way out of this one is to say something like: "Numan began to record under his own name".--SabreBD (talk)08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've read it several times, and I'm not sure that the Characteristics section is clear enough. I'm not getting a simple explanation of what synthpop is, rather I am getting a theoretical discussion that is perhaps too soon, and too involved. It feels like it is written by people who already know about synthpop, and have made perhaps too many assumptions about what the reader is likely to know. The statement that synthpop "abandoned punk's emphasis on authenticity and often pursued a deliberate artificiality" is not grounded in a basic and simple description of what synthpop actually is, so a reader wouldn't be able to visualise the music, or how it compared to punk. A statement that synthpop was, in part, a reaction against punk - in terms of instruments, appearance, attitude and glamour - might be simpler and clearer, and the artifice of synthpop, which is taken from a variety of sources, such as Krautrock and Minimal music, not just the reaction to punk, would also be worth explaining more fully - though perhaps a little later, after there was some simple and clear description of the music itself. SilkTork✔Tea time17:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
The sentence that starts - "1980 saw the release of a series of highly influential synthpop albums, including Devo's Freedom of Choice...." has a series of citations, but none of them appear to fully support the statement that the albums were "highly influential synthpop". SilkTork✔Tea time18:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
As I recall when I was finding sources I had a lot of trouble with this particular passage and ended up cutting it down (there were a lot more albums) and finding sources to support the release of the albums. Does this make sense if we drop the comment on highly influential? That would be the simple solution.--SabreBD (talk)08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
The section Precursors is very useful and informative. I wonder, though, if it is too detailed for this article. The section is mainly talking about electronic music, and wanders through various musicians who used electronics such as ELP and The Who, and on details about early synthesizers, so there is a loss of focus on synthpop. I think the first two paragraphs could be substantially reduced. As an example, Rock music summarises the main instrument thus: "The sound of rock is traditionally centered around the electric guitar, which emerged in its modern form in the 1950s with the popularization of rock and roll." Perhaps the first paragraph could be similarly summarised? "The sound of synthpop is centred on the synthesizer, an electronic instrument that was used intermittently in pop music in the 1960s, and then more fully explored in the 1970s by composers such as the American Wendy Carlos and Krautrock bands such as Tangerine Dream and Kraftwerk." SilkTork✔Tea time23:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have to say I have checked the passage and the source and I cannot see anything word for word. There are no complete sentences taken over here. Given that there is a clear citation that gives credit this looks like fair use to me. However, it is possible I am looking at the wrong section or missing something so I may need more details.--SabreBD (talk)08:11, 26 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
There are minor typos in the prose, which are not a major issue, I'm correcting them as I spot them. However, the prose is not always as "clear" as it could be. The language at times is dense with information, and sprinkled with jargon such as "arpeggiated beats", "setting a template with less minimalism, more varying use of synthesizer lines", and "the Numan Futurist movement", and this is combined with sentences which don't seem to relate to what is being said about the development of synthpop - "In opposition to the anti hero punk attitude, Numan desired to be a pop star", "I Ran (So Far Away)" (1982) by A Flock of Seagulls is generally considered the first hit by a British act to enter the Billboard Top Ten as a result of the power of video" - or which appear inserted here and there without consideration of what has been said earlier in the paragraph. The Declining popularity and development section is an example of this muddle, as it jumps around between UK and USA, and between synthpop declining and synthpop being successful, so by the end one is not sure what is happening to synthpop in which country. The article needs a good copyedit, preferably by someone who has not been involved in it, so there are fresh eyes on it. You could try asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. The difficulty for such a copyeditor, is that this is not just about tidying up the prose, but about the clarity of the content, so some understanding of the topic and knowledge of the sources would be needed. SilkTork✔Tea time00:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I take the point about those passages, the tone of which I have never really been happy with. The problems with the order of the latter sections are largely created by these being moved about by a series of editors. I didn't revert these because they had a point. Perhaps we need to go back to the original order, if we can find it. Is there time to get the guild of copyeditors to look at this before we run out of time? They do have quite a backlog.--SabreBD (talk)08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have done my best to fix the offending phrases and to sort the order. I cant say its easy to do this while not putting in points to join the dots that might be considered OR.--SabreBD (talk)19:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Prior to Numan the synth acts reflected the bleak and empty landscape of Britain of the late 1970s." What does this mean, and which synth acts are being referred to? SilkTork✔Tea time00:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Along with the above mentioned statement which when checked is not supported by the cited sources, there are occasional statements which are challengable and not cited. I will go through and mark a few. SilkTork✔Tea time00:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is quite a lot of work here. Unfortunately, this is a weekend when I do not have a lot of free time, so there may be a need for patience over some of this.--SabreBD (talk)08:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would rather spend a month and see an article improved and listed, than close as a fail after a week because all the work hasn't been done. As long as there is reasonable progress and reasonable hope, I'm happy to keep the review open. I also understand that we are all volunteers, and that real life takes priority. Communication is the key. It's when there is no communication and no work done that I get concerned.
That's great. I would rather have a review which honestly points out the issues, rather than one that just nods it through. I will keep you posted on my progress. Of course other editors may get to some of this before I do.--SabreBD (talk)11:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
This article has made great progress since this version in June, and all those involved are to be commended for the work they have done. There is much to like and admire in this article. It is clear that good research has been done, and much material has been assembled. I feel that there is a decent article here, though it needs some work to bring it out. There needs to be some clarity about what synthpop is, and when it emerged and was at its height. There needs to be clarity of the difference between synthpop and other forms of electronic music, so a reader can identify what synthpop is, and also so the editors of this article can decide who to include and why - the second paragraph of Declining popularity and development, for example, appears to be wandering away from synthpop. The prose needs sharpening so that jargon is avoided or explained. Some material needs to be trimmed, so the article focuses on synthpop rather than the entire history of electronic music. The article needs a decent copyedit to ensure flow and meaning and relevance. Some of the sourcing needs looking at. This may seem a lot of work, but it's just a case of tidying up what is here. It may be that the main contributors can see the flaws and can do the tidying up themselves; or it may need a fresh pair of eyes to come in and do the work. Main points:
Copyedit for clarity and flow
Check sources, particularly where the source has been almost copied
Trim the Precursors section
Define synthpop and ensure article remains focused on that topic
I'll put this on hold to allow the work to be done, and in the meantime I'll do a bit more background reading into synthpop. Any questions, please give me a ping. SilkTork✔Tea time01:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
This weekend is the first time I will be able to get down to serious editing, so I hope we will have made quite a lot of progress by the time you get back. Have a good run.--SabreBD (talk)18:10, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Did a reread of the article is and what struck me is that the "Precursor" the sections pre Kraftwork is to detailed reading more like a combo Electronic Music/Electronic Rock article then a synthpop article. I would suggest trimming that down to a summary. Hot Butter should stay and with the if I remember correctly pre merger sourcing describing it as a precursor.
After this weekends edits are complete I would like to put language notes that some reliable sources do describe electropop as a more harder version of synthpop.
OK. Time to sum up and take stock of changes I think. Edkollin has dealt with some issues and I have done most of what I feel I can to meet the requests above at this time. Here are the major points:
Prose quality: the offending phrases have been changed or removed I think and much simpler language (and sentence construction) used. Of course I may have missed some. I have also done my best to copyedit the article, so perhaps we could consider whether it still needs changes and an external copyedit.--SabreBD (talk)00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Edkollin has filled in the highlighted gaps. The text didn't seem copied to me, but in any case I have adjusted some of it for safety's sake.
Focus: I have edited down the precursors section by about a third and I think it is much more focused on synthpop and reads a lot better. I also stuck much more closely to chronological order and hopefully the narrative of what is happening is much clearer now. Although this is tricky as we either have to jump in time or place.
Define synthpop: I have pretty much rewritten the characteristics section along the lines suggested and I hope it is a lot clearer.
Hopefully you are recovered from the run and can let us know if there if any of these areas need further work, or clarify any misunderstandings or omissions. Many thanks.--SabreBD (talk)00:30, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Yes, recovered (apart from a sore toe - I suspect I may lose the toe nail), and now preparing for the French Riviera Marathon in November. I'm just wrapping up Talk:Courtney Love/GA1 - editing there hasn't progressed as much as it could, so I'm getting directly involved to see if the article can be cleaned up enough to list it. There appears to be sufficient information - so I think it's just a question of ensuring the souring is adequate and also tidying the prose and presentation. When I've finished there I'll come straight here. I'm pleased to say that of the GANS I picked up a month ago, I have listed 10 and only had to fail 3. I still have 4 left, including this one, and I would be reluctant to allow them to fail at this stage. SilkTork✔Tea time14:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Original research. Good use of inline cites enables easy checking of sources to quickly establish that there's no original research. The editors appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject and know which sources to use to support statements rather than imposing their own opinions. Well done on that - this is the sort of subject that invites OR. SilkTork✔Tea time18:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Prose. prose is clear and conveys information in a concise and readable manner. There is a possibility it becomes rather data heavy in places, but I don't think the meaning is ever lost. This is a big improvement on the earlier version I looked at. SilkTork✔Tea time19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Neutral. There is a tendency to use very positive statements such as "perhaps the single most significant event in melodic music since Mersey-beat", while not including any balancing criticism. It's not a huge problem as most of the article is factual and neutral, but if that could be addressed it would be useful. SilkTork✔Tea time19:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
MoS. Now the jargon has been sorted the article meets all the relevant MoS requirements, though the lead could do with some mention of the influence of Synthpop. SilkTork✔Tea time19:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Fail
General comments
Clockwork Orange: "It was the first time many in the United Kingdom had heard electronic music." This is unsourced and contentious. Many people in the UK were already familiar with Dr Who, and Carlos' Switched-On Bach had been released three years earlier. Probably better to remove it. SilkTork✔Tea time18:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Very good article - I'm impressed at the improvements that have been made. I have two small quibbles to be dealt with. The main one is the inclusion of mention of Synthpop's influence in the lead. The other one is include some balancing critical comments, though that could be seen as part of ongoing development. I'll put on hold again to allow the work to be done. SilkTork✔Tea time19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for the result and for a very full and considered review, which has really helped improve the quality of this article.--SabreBD (talk)20:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
