Talk:1980 (album)/GA1
Appearance
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 16:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
- B. lists):
- Fails MOS:LINKQUOTE. Not a reasonable reason given to hyperlink a monarch when the text is ambiguous and lacks context to justify such assertion.
- Fails
- A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
- C. No original research:
- Two instances of original research, one was fixed reluctantly and the other still in the article. Despite the fact that "Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever" mentions a 1980 song, Christgau never discussed any particular title. If the article 1980 mentioned that "Shot 'Um Down" is an anti-nuclear and the original source was Christgau alone, WP:SYNTHapplied. Thankfully for the readers, other sources exist.
- Two instances of original research, one was fixed reluctantly and the other still in the article. Despite the fact that "Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever" mentions a 1980 song, Christgau never discussed any particular title. If the article 1980 mentioned that "Shot 'Um Down" is an anti-nuclear and the original source was Christgau alone,
- D. No copyright violations:
- A. References to sources (it also includes an
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- See the big white box on the right
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
- A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are suitable captions:
- A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Resolved comments from Tbhotch |
---|
;Image
|
- Background
- It is missing. Considering this is their 6th album together, there is information about it.
- "Background" sections are not compulsory. And that is presumptive; where does this information exist and what exactly does it discuss? talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)]
- "Background" sections are not compulsory. And that is presumptive; where does this information exist and what exactly does it discuss?
- ]
- You are showing me a guide that concedes it is "a list of possible sections," rather than necessary sections. The music and lyrics sections have some background on their previous work, ideas, etc. The album exists because it was recorded and released. If there is any more information relevant as "background" to this album, it does not exist in the literature. Scott-Heron's career has not been a deeply-covered topic; even AllMusic's skimpy bio has major errors like naming 1978 as the year Jackson left their recording partnership. talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- The awful stub that existed before your first edit here had a source not present anymore. That means there are more than 16 sources out there. I cited the wording "as a reader I am not reading why the album exists". Therefore, the article fails Point 3a. "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic". ]
- Did you bother to read the source (Umoji Sasa) you are referring to, Mr. Reviewer? It's an album review, offering more of the same for the themes section (lyrics, song analysis). The source, by the way, is a "campus newspaper". So, yes, you are definitely being presumptive, and lazy; if you are gonna make a big stink about this, you should have your ducks in a row. talk) 17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Point (a) means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects. (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- If there is more to this album's coming to existence than what is already explained (recording, inspiration behind themes, the label releasing it), then it's talk) 18:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- If there is more to this album's coming to existence than what is already explained (recording, inspiration behind themes, the label releasing it), then it's
- Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. (
- Point (a) means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects. (
- Did you bother to read the source (Umoji Sasa) you are referring to, Mr. Reviewer? It's an album review, offering more of the same for the themes section (lyrics, song analysis). The source, by the way, is a "campus newspaper". So, yes, you are definitely being presumptive, and lazy; if you are gonna make a big stink about this, you should have your ducks in a row.
- You are showing me a guide that concedes it is "a list of possible sections," rather than necessary sections. The music and lyrics sections have some background on their previous work, ideas, etc. The album exists because it was recorded and released. If there is any more information relevant as "background" to this album, it does not exist in the literature. Scott-Heron's career has not been a deeply-covered topic; even AllMusic's skimpy bio has major errors like naming 1978 as the year Jackson left their recording partnership.
- Themes
- ""Shut 'Um Down" features an anti-nuclear message" -> From source: " Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever."
- Are you doubting the "antinuke" reference is to "Shut Um Down"? I've added a ranking from The Nation to the last section ("anti-nuclear songs"). talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Are you doubting the "antinuke" reference is to "Shut Um Down"? I've added a ranking from The Nation to the last section ("anti-nuclear songs").
- I am doubting the part where "Shut 'Um Down" is labeled as "anti-nuclear"/"antinuke", when the source does not mention the title of the song. Pitchfork, however, does it. ]
- Some intuitiveness is required (there's no other song on the album to touch nuclear power), but whatever; I'll replace the source. talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- So, you were asking readers to accept original thinking once again. ]
- "It is not original research to contextualize a possibly misleading quotation, provided this is done accurately and neutrally." It was accurate. talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Just drop it, in itself it is original research. ]
- "It is not original research to contextualize a possibly misleading quotation, provided this is done accurately and neutrally." It was accurate.
- Some intuitiveness is required (there's no other song on the album to touch nuclear power), but whatever; I'll replace the source.
- "subjects include ... the shah (dead)," -> Is Christgau talking about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
- The reference could be to Pahlavi but also to talk) 22:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)]
- The reference could be to Pahlavi but also to
- So, the wikilink is original research. ]
- "Accurately contextualizing quotations" is talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- From ]
- I agree with where it went. I agree that Christgau is referring to "the shah". I agree that "the shah" refers to Pahlavi. If you have a specific question or demand, as a reviewer, I'm all ears. talk) 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Unless you want to continue talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Unless you are Christgau himself, you cannot speak for him. And ]
- Unless you want to continue
- I agree with where it went. I agree that Christgau is referring to "the shah". I agree that "the shah" refers to Pahlavi. If you have a specific question or demand, as a reviewer, I'm all ears.
- "Accurately contextualizing quotations" is
- to seem retro - they want to move on -> Replace the dash
- Done. talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)]
- Done.
Article on hold.
]The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.