Talk:The Return of Dr. Octagon/GA1

GA Review

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

Generally the article seems quite good but there's quite a bit of work to be done before it can be raised to GA status.

Lead

• If Keith Thornton is "better known" as Kool Keith it would make sense to refer to him as such in the opening sentence.

• "Released in 2006, it is the emcee's second album under the Dr. Octagon alias. The first was the 1996 release Dr. Octagonecologyst." Think it would make sense to merge these sentences.

• "...killed off by another Thornton character, Dr. Dooom, on Thornton's 1999 release..." Think "his 1999 release" would suffice and aid readability.

• "Thornton signed a contract with CMH Records, which released the album under its OCD International imprint." I'm not sure that the second part of this sentence should come before discussion of the the producers given - seems like the OCD imprint was created after the album was finished?

History

• Think this section would be better titled Origins and recording.

• I don't think Keith's quote should be simply repeated in full - would prefer to see some editor input summarising what he's actually saying.

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think that I've shortened the quote enough for readers to get the gist of his comments. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Ok Cavie78 (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "In 2002, Thornton announced The Resurrection of Dr. Octagon, a proposed sequel to Dr. Octagonecologyst, that would reintroduce the character." - Why? Especially important given that the preceding para seems to suggest that he wanted to move away from Dr. Octagon.

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A reader would assume that Thornton changed his mind. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

You have specifically stated that Keith wanted to move away from Dr. Octagon and even went as far as to kill the character off; he then decides to record another album. I don't think relying on the reader to assume that he "changed his mind" is enough really - there most have been a reason, even if it was merely financial. I think it is reasonable to expect that a reader would want to know the answer to this question Cavie78 (talk) 13:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

• "On 23 July 2002, Rolling Stone reported that a new Dr. Octagon album would be released in February" Probably best to say February 2003 here.

• "Thornton recorded vocals for three tracks, "Trees", "Ants", and "Aliens"". This sentence seems out of place - when did the recording take place? Was it with Fanatik J?

• Last paragraph doesn't belong here - I'd prefer to see it in the 'Reception' section.

Production

• Don't like this section I'm afraid - it seems messy and not very well organised... I'd like to see it merged into the section above.

The section is not about the general recording of the album. It is about the creation of the music. I based the structure of this article upon Enter the Wu-Tang (36 Chambers). (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

I'm not entirely convinced - the Wu-Tang article flows much better whereas the split between 'Origins and recording' and 'Music: Production' here seems a bit arbitrary. Might ask for a second opinion on this once other changes have been made.Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I've spoken to an experienced reviewer who agrees with my concerns. I think the last two paras are fine but the first should be reworded to specifically discuss the production while the 'telling the story' type stuff (e.g. Following Fanatik J's disputes with the label, CMH contacted San Francisco-based producer John Lindland and Melbourne-based producers Simon Walbrook and Ben Green to produce material for the album.) should be moved to the preceding section. Cavie78 (talk) 13:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

• Is the first paragraph a quote from before production of the album began? In which case seems a bit odd here given that the previous section takes us up to Fanatik J departing.

• Second paragraph should probably state Keith's involvement i.e. that he wasn't involved!

• Last paragraph - heavily weighted towards positive reviews and probably belongs in the 'reception section'

This paragraph is needed, as it describes some of the musical aspects of the album. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC))

I see what you mean but it does feel a bit too much like a reception section. Perhaps you could include some quotes from people who don't like the production to say why they dislike it? Cavie78 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Moved the KutMasta Kurt quote to this section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Lyrical themes and storyline

• Is there a coherent storyline? Title of the section seems to suggest there is but the section really only discuses general themes.

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The label's promotional material suggested a storyline, but, as it is stated in the article, Thornton had little involvement with the album's production. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

In that case I think you should say as much in the article. Cavie78 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

• "In the album's storyline, Dr. Octagon is alive due to circumstances vaguely revealed in an eight-episode Web comic, in which a giant gorilla intends to destroy the galaxy and has sent a number of unauthorized clones it controls to do so." Bit more explanation needed here I think - Dr. Dooom killed one of the clones rather than Dr. Octagon himself?

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Short answer: I have no idea. I'm only going by what Brown states, and she is very vague. I have no idea where to find the original comic for clarification. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Seems like there's some stuff here This blog seems to suggest that the 'web comic' is, in fact, the remixes available at the first link.

You are correct. It is not a comic, but a story supplementing each remix. I have found all eight chapters of the original story. I have summarized this story, citing the chapters themselves. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

I've done a brief copyedit on the this section to clear things up a bit Cavie78 (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Whole section draws far too heavily on quotes (particularly the second para) and is in danger of copyright violation. Think the themes should be summarised (with refs provided) with less direct quoting.

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the current usage of quotes is appropriate in discussing the reviewers' opinions. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, didn't realise you'd changed the section. Cavie78 (talk) 13:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Singles, remixes and music videos

• First sentence should be joined with the second para.

• "Each episode of the promotional web comic featured bonus remixes from Prefuse 73, Aesop Rock, Kid Loco, and Spank Rock" Don't think the word "bonus" is needed. Are the remixes unique to the web comic? Presumably they are remixes of album tracks?

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It directly states that the remixes are "exclusive" to the comics. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I meant the second point, that the remixes are of album tracks. Cavie78 (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on these remixes has been moved into the storyline section. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC))

• "Music videos were produced for the album" For which tracks? Just for the singles?

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Clarified. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• "According to Thornton, "I'm shocked. I mean, I don't know. It was just so wild, the way they did this. But what am I supposed to do? It's not my fault."" Again more commentary needed rather than just a quote - did Thornton not like the videos? Was he surprised because of the form they took or because he wasn't asked to take part in filming?

""shocked" by the label's misrepresentation." is better but I still think it could be clearer - what is Keith's actual problem with the videos? Presumably by misrepresentation he means that they don't portray the Dr. Octagon character in the way he'd like? Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed. Possibly too confusing for other readers as well. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

Release

• Seems a bit messy again overall...

• "OCD originally intended to ship 50,000 units during the first year, but these plans were halted." Why?

• Second and third paras should be merged and follow chronological order e.g. "CMH distributor World's Fair promoted The Return of Dr. Octagon as the official sequel to Dr. Octagonecologyst, and claimed that Thornton would tour in support of the album." should probably go before Keith's quote about being pissed off.

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• "...and The Washington Post endorsed the album" What does "endorsed the album" mean?

Still needs addressing Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Cleaned up. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• "Internet rumors began to spread that the album was released without Thornton's authorization" Have you got Keith's reaction to this?

I'm not really sure that the ref given backs up statement "Thornton did not confirm these rumors" Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't have Keith's reaction to the rumors. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

• "...performed under the Dr. Octagon billing, but did not acknowledge the album" By not playing songs from the album?

Reception

• "Metacritic, which compiles reviews from a wide range of critics, gives the album a score of 61%, denoting generally favorable reviews. The album did not chart." Seems like this might be better at the start of the section

• Should probably state who KutMasta Kurt is.

• "I think we might've been on a flight somewhere in Europe in December 2006, and he was saying" Who is 'he'?

Other stuff

• A 'Personnel' section is needed - album articles can't technically be above 'C' class without one (see WikiProject Albums)

Should really be a full personnel section here taken from the cd booklet rather than Allmusic which includes credits for bass, guitar etc. as well as production and mixing especially as the article states earlier that Keith plays some of the instruments.Cavie78 (talk) 16:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the album or the booklet. None of the music tracks recorded with Keith's involvement were used. All of the music was created without Keith's involvement by One-Watt Sun. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC))

I found some more info on Discogs so I've updated the section. Cavie78 (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise there's quite a lot there but I think the bulk of the article is good and GA can be achieved with a little hard work. I'll keep checking back for changes and will give a couple of weeks for my concerns to be addressed. Cavie78 (talk) 15:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)