Talk:Making a New World

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good articleMaking a New World has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 3, 2020Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 8, 2020.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Making a New World, a concept album by Field Music about the after-effects of World War I, originated from a commission by the Imperial War Museum?
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

5x expanded by Hunter Kahn (talk). Self-nominated at 03:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • Hey Hunter Kahn, this is an impressive expansion, and I think it can easily pass a GA review. My review follows below: epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

  • Adequate sourcing: Yes
  • Neutral
    : Yes
  • Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing: No - There are a lot of quotes that bring up false positives on copyvios. But there are also some true matches which aren't in quotes:
    • first true concept album. Its songs grew from a project Field Music undertook for the Imperial War Museum
    • utilised transducers to capture the vibrations, then displayed on a graph showing the distances between peaks on different lines to pinpoint the location of enemy armament
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: Done.

Overall: epicgenius (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks epicgenius. I've made some minor changes to try to alleviate the copyvio issues. The two flagged passages were actually in the pre-expansion version, which may still have been written by me in the past, but is probably why I didn't catch it during the expansion. In any event, let me know if you think it's sufficient now. (Also, I actually have nominated it for GA, along with one other Field Music album, so if you or anyone else reading this is interested in reviewing it, by all means! LOL) Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hunter Kahn: No problem. I didn't see the GA template, but that's even better. I or someone else might review it down the road.
    Sorry to bother you again, but there are actually a few more examples (which I didn't notice before). I think these should be the last issues. epicgenius (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This should be good to go, then. Thanks for responding so quickly. epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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 toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
transcluded from Talk:Making a New World/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Good Article
review progress box
WP:CV
()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4.
free or tagged images
() 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked
are unassessed

This is quite a long article, so it may take a while for me to review. However, I will work hard on it and the first suggestion is to add a personnel section for easily going above start class, remember there is more than composing and writing to be mentioned within the article. --Kyle Peake (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks Kyle Peake for taking on the review! I just added a Personnel section consistent with those in the other Field Music album GAs; sorry I initially forgot that with this one. Looking forward to your feedback on the article! — Hunter Kahn 17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox and lead

  • The citations are not needed here as that is sourced in the body
  • I can see that the album was initially recorded in 2019, can you find a source to verify if it ended then or 2020? Add this within a sentence in the body, then add recording year(s here
    • I don't have a source that specifically states this. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know there's various genres cited in the body; list pop and rock here since most are sub genres of them that are sourced
  • The lead does not comply with
    WP:LEAD
    , as it is five paragraphs long. Try thinking about what it is notable for the lead before trimming it, take the sentence: ""A Change of Heir" was inspired by Harold Gillies, a surgeon who pioneered skin grafts and later conducted one of the first gender realignment operations." for example; this is hardly notable here
    • I've tightened it a bit; the area you suggested was the main spot where there was fat to trim. Let me know if this works. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah looks good, needs a few more fixes though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Could you be a bit more specific? — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have made a list of points that are further comments for the new lead, which you haven't yet responded to on this page. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the English rock band" → "by English rock band" and mention the members directly afterwards, while wikilinking David
    • I've added the wikilink, but are you sure mentioning the band members is necessary? I don't usually see this kind of thing in articles about albums (for example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an FA, but the lead doesn't list off John, Paul, George and Ringo as band members). It would also add length to an already fairly lengthy lead, and it would also be a little more complicated than with a normal band, because you could argue that David and Peter Brewis are the only true band members, whereas the other three are more like touring/associate members, and if we were to list all five we'd have to explain that context and add even more length to the lead. My preference would be to just keep it as is, and the fact that the band article is wikilinked means the reader can always click on it to get more information about the members anyway... — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure the information about the meaning of the album after the release sentence should not be switched to the next para instead? It just seems like the recording information belongs earlier in the lead than this to me... I am not referencing the museum information here.
    • I personally like it in the first paragraph because I think it's perhaps the most crucial single statement of the whole album, so it feels appropriate for the very top. Moving it to the second paragraph would also make that one very long while the first paragraph would be very short (not that that is a major consideration). However, I did move the sentence to the bottom of the first paragraph, so it segues more smoothly into the second. Is that an acceptable compromise? — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and how that they impacted the 100 years" → "and how they impacted the 100 years"
  • "by Field Music's David and Peter Brewis" → "by David and Peter Brewis"
  • "The starting point for the project" → "The starting point for the museum project" to specify it's not the album
  • "exact moment when the war ended" → "exact moment that the war ended"
  • "After conducting researching" → "After conducting research"
    • Ugh, I had some rather embarrassing typos in the lead! Apologies; I think some of these I had thought I previously fixed on a copy edit, but perhaps it didn't save. I've fixed this one now. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "World War I, and instead" → "World War I. They instead" as the sentence is a bit of a run-on
  • "topics are addressed in the songs" → "topics are addressed in the songs on Making a New World"
  • "first single" → "lead single"
  • "for dressing war wounds." → "for dressing war wounds, and was released in September 2019."
    • This sentence was removed due to my efforts to condense the lead, so I believe this is a moot point now. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow this in the same para with "It was followed by the singles "Money Is a Memory" and "Beyond That of Courtesy" later that year, while "Do You Read Me?" was released as the final single in 2020."
    • Per above, I removed the mentions of the singles; my feeling is that since they are listed in the infobox, we could omit them from the lead and help shorten it from five paragraphs to four. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two real-time band run-throughs" → "two real-time band run-throughs by Field Music"
  • "Field Music guitarist" → "the band's guitarist"
  • "when the band toured in support of the album" → "when they toured in support of the album in 2020"
    • I reworded this a bit to shorten the lead. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Making a New World features a diverse mix" → "The latter features a diverse mixture"
    • I changed the paragraphs a bit during my edits, so this sentence begins a new paragraph now. If we keep it that way, I think it makes sense to keep the album title in, rather than "the latter". But let me know your thoughts. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target vocal harmonies to Vocal harmony
  • "The album received generally positive reviews and was praised for its" → "Making a New World received generally positive reviews from music critics and was praised for the"
    • If we are indeed keeping the album title in the prior sentence (up to you!) that means adding it here will create a bit of redundancy. So for now I've made the changes you suggest, but kept the "the album" part. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with writers complimenting praising Field Music" → "with Field Music being complimented"
    • Ugh, another embarrassing error. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some negative reviews said an album" → "Some critics were more negative, saying the album"
  • I may have further comments about fixes once it has been trimmed to four paragraphs.

Further comments for the new lead

  • "The primary recordings for Making is a New World came" → "The primary recordings for the album came"
  • "used for the museum shows and tour dates for the album" → "used for the former's tour dates and the museum shows" since you will have already used "the album" for referencing it in the para
  • Bonus: just noticed the infobox has the first single's release date listed as 03 January; change to 3 January 2020 instead

Background

  • Retitle to Background and development
  • London img needs alt text
  • Remove the img wikilink to Field Music
  • Remove the opening sentence, as that does not need to be written in the body of an article
    • I don't actually agree with this feedback; I think it should be mentioned in the body of the article and I don't see the benefit of removing it. But I've done so. — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Released through their label Memphis Industries,[3][4][5] it is" → "Released through Field Music's record label Memphis Industries,[3][4][5] Making a New World is"
  • "and is considered the Field Music's first" → "and is considered the band's first"
  • "Its songs were originally composed from a project the band" → "The songs were originally composed from a project that Field Music"
  • "and its effects on society afterward" → "and its effects on society afterwards"
  • "That program ultimately inspired" → "The program ultimately inspired"
  • Introduce Paul Nash as a war artist
  • "The painting depicts the consequences" → "The latter depicts the consequences" to avoid repetitive wording
  • Checked
    WP:NAMES
    and stating David here is fine, as you have already introduced him and his brother.
  • "IWM originally planned" → "The IWM originally planned"
  • The Fall should not have the capitalised per
    MOS:THEMUSIC
  • "previously familiar with IWM" → "previously familiar with the IWM"
  • Ref 13 should not be cited twice in the same sentence since there is no ref overcrowding where it needs to be cited mid sentence too
    • Removed the first citation. — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more comfortable after visiting the IWM North branch and discussing the project." → "more comfortable with the project after visiting the IWM North branch and discussing it."
  • "Field Music had previously produced" → "The latter had previously produced"
  • "the band Warm Digits and the Royal Northern Sinfonia" → "the band Warm Digits, and the Royal Northern Sinfonia" to separate it from the band
  • "high school studies and" → "high school studies and explained this by claiming that"
  • Remove the wikilink for Field Music on the img of Peter Brewis and wikilink rock on it
  • "In the spring of 2018,[9] IWM" → "In the spring of 2018,[9] the IWM"
  • "commissioned the band" → "commissioned Field Music"
  • "upon a picture from a 1919 publication about munitions" → "upon a picture about munitions from a 1919 publication"
  • [20][21][8] the refs should be in numerical order
  • "at 11 a.m. on 11 November 1918" → "of 11 a.m. on 11 November 1918"
  • "peaks on lines on a graph" → "peaks with lines on a graph"
  • "and intense noise followed by one minute of near silence" → "and intense noise, followed by near silence for the same amount of time"
  • "also the start of a new world."[8]" → "also the start of a new world".[8]"
    • Since this quotation has two full sentences in it, I was under the impression that the period should go inside? — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David said they imagined the lines" → "David stated that they imagined the lines"
    • I made this change, but I don't really see the benefit of the change; it seems to just add an additional word where one less would suffice? — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Flows better grammatically and said has been fixed throughout this article for over-usage --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band originally considered" → "Field Music originally considered"
  • [7][28][17] put in numerical order
  • Wikilink orchestral to Orchestra
  • "during the Belle Époque like" → "during the Belle Époque, including"
  • Add 1913 in brackets after The Rite of Spring
  • "their research ultimately" → "the brothers' research ultimately"
  • "faster process than usual Field Music" → "faster process than usual for Field Music"
  • "because "I made a couple" → "because he "made a couple"
  • "to other members of the band" → "to other members of Field Music"
  • "from their usual procedure" → "from the former's usual procedure"
  • Remove wikilink to Ireland
  • "by the band's guitarist" → "by Field Music's guitarist"
  • [8][16][12] put in numerical order
  • "as was explanatory text" → "as well as explanatory text"
  • "individuals songs they played" → "individuals songs that they played"
    • I'm not a big fan of uses of the word "that" when the sentence would be unaffected if they are omitted. LOL But I added it. — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [8][12][30] put in numerical order
  • "at the Imperial War Museum sites in Salford on 24 January 2019 and London on 31 January 2019." → "at the IWM sites in Salford and London on 24 January and 31 January 2019, respectively."
  • "David said he believes Christmas of 2018" → "David voiced the belief that Christmas of 2018" and wikilink on Christmas
  • "until they actually recorded" → "until the band actually recorded"
  • "from the music they had" → "from the music that they had"
    • Changed, but again I do so under duress. :P — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David said "I think that was" → "David admitted he thought "that was"
  • "as an "accidental record" as a result" → "as feeling like an "accidental record" as a result"

Lyrics and themes

  • Sure this should come after the Musical style section?
    • I don't think there is a specific standard or guidelines regarding this, but the current order makes the most sense to me. — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Individual stories

  • "the commission from IWM" → "the commission from the IWM"
  • "David and Peter Brewis decided against" are you sure it shouldn't be "David and Peter Brewis initially decided against"?
    • No I had intended for it to be this way. This is to say they didn't want the songs to be specifically and broadly about the war itself, bur rather to focus on individual stories as they did... — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink pop music to itself
  • "Instead, they decided" → "Instead, the Brewis brothers decided"
  • "something much bigger."" → "something much bigger"."
    • I believe per
      WP:QUOTEMARK that the period stays inside the quotation marks for full sentences (like this one), but outside of them for sentence fragments and partial quotations? — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "visting IWM in person" → "visiting the IWM in person"
  • Sure you shouldn't mention "songs" somewhere in the opening sentence of the second para?
    • I'm not sure I understand what you're looking for here? — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure that it's not best to mention songs at the start of the second para to properly establish that the research was for them? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added "In writing the songs" to the start of that sentence. Is this what you mean? — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [12][38][39][9] put in numerical order
  • "David Brewis said of" → "David said of"
  • "are still with us."" → "are still with us"."
    • See my above comment about
      WP:QUOTEMARK. — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "He also said the Brewis brothers were" → "He also said that him and Peter were" since original wording sounds like a non Brewis said it
  • "conflict in that time."" → "conflict in that time"."
    • See my above comment about
      WP:QUOTEMARK. — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "concluding with present day" → "concluding with the present day"
  • "are acceptable."" → "are acceptable"."
    • See my above comment about
      WP:QUOTEMARK. — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "of such songs as" → "of songs such as"
  • ""Money is a Memory"" → ""Money is a Memory""
    • Did you mean to say the "Is" should be capitalized? If so, I've done that. — Hunter Kahn 18:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was the main composer of songs like" → "was the main composer of other songs, including"
  • "biggest challenges of the process" → "biggest challenges of the process for the brothers"
  • "said they enjoyed" → "claimed they enjoyed"
    • Honestly not sure why this change is necessary, but I did it. :) — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Said is used right at the start of the next sentence, so this should be done to prevent repetitive wording --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and afterward they did not feel" → "and after that, the brothers did not feel"
  • "Since the songs for Making a New World" → "Since the songs for the album"
  • "lives, like many Field Music works, they" → "lives like many Field Music works, the band"
  • "Despite the album's concept" → "Despite concept of Making a New World"
    • I assume you meant "Despite the concept of Making a New World". I made that change. — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, slight typo on my part there, sorry about that haha! --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he hoped it Making a New World would" → "he hoped that the album would"
  • "The Brewis brothers also tried" → "The brothers also tried"
  • "though Peter acknowledges" → "though Peter acknowledged" unless it means he said that in the lyrics then keep as the former

End of the war

  • "Supreme Allied Commander" is not needed on the image as he is introduced in the text
  • "is never used in the album" → "is never used on the album"
    • Are you sure about this one? I'm pretty sure "in" is more correct... — Hunter Kahn 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think "on" works better, since you'd be more likely to say "there's no gun references on the album" than "in the album".
  • [38][53][12] put in numerical order
  • "David Brewis said of this" → "David said of this"
    • I had been using the full name on the first reference of each individual section, but I suppose that is not necessary, so I removed the first name. — Hunter Kahn 17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about World War I at all."" → "about World War I at all"."
    • See my above comment about
      WP:QUOTEMARK. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "Peter Brewis said the band" → "Peter said that Field Music"
  • "prevent the album" → "prevent Making a New World"
  • Don't think Peter's quote is needed in the sentence; change to "overly happy or sad, not wanting to write songs that presented certain ideas about war and peace" or something similar
  • "did not want the album" → "did not want Making a New World"
  • [53][43][55] put in numerical order
  • "Peter said of this: "We wrote" → "Peter claimed that him and David "wrote" to avoid repetitive wording
    • Changed, though I think "claimed that he and David" is grammatically correct in this case, instead of "him and David"? Let me know if I'm wrong or feel free to change it yourself if so. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, either one would work but "he" seems better, nice catch! --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "encroach onto that territory."" → "encroach onto that territory"."
    • This one I did change because it was a partial quotation. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "into the now."" → "into the now"."
    • See my above comment about
      WP:QUOTEMARK. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • "in the first three songs of" → "within the first three songs on"
  • "The opening two tracks" → "The opening two songs"
  • "sound ranging image,[17] with the" → "sound ranging image.[17] The"
  • "song representing the sounds" → "song represents the sounds"
  • "and the latter a sudden silence" → "while the latter depicts a sudden silence"
  • [15][60][18] put in numerical order
  • "as well as the signing of the" → "and the signing of the"
  • [17][8][61] put in numerical order
  • "David called it a song" → "David described it as a song"
  • "confusion, which he described as "a feeling" → "confusion", which he called "a feeling"
  • "ponders whether there" → "ponders whether or not there"
    • I'm not sure the extra two words are necessary, but I did add them. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Whether or not" is more often used as a phrase than simply "whether" so makes more sense I suppose. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and whether he can" → "and if he can"
  • "in the lyrics in which he wonders" → "in the lyrics showing him wondering"
  • "reflects the attendees of this meeting" → "reflects the meeting's attendees"
  • "used to illustrate their detachment" → "used to illustrate the former's detachment"
  • "on the having his meals" → "on having his meals"

Technological and medical advances

  • [12][21][8] put in numerical order
  • "was inspired the user of" → "was inspired by the usage of"
  • [17][9][66] put in numerical order
  • "David Brewis, the father of two young children at the time of the album's" → "David, the father of two young children at the time of Making A New World's"
  • "from a place in flight" → "during a flight"
  • [69][70][43][68] put in numerical order and maybe one or more should be after the comma instead?
    • Fixed the order. All four of these quotes use that exact quotation, so I think the placement is OK, but I can still change it if you think it's necessary. — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He said of the song: "That I chose to write that story" → "He said that he chose to write the song's "story"
  • "value time alone."" → "value time alone"."
    • The previous change made this a partial quotation, so I changed it. — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove wikilink on New Zealand
  • "soldiers and who later" → "soldiers, and later"
  • [7][61][17] put in numerical order
  • [10][71][71] should be at the end of the sentence and remove the repeated ref 71 as that's not too many
  • "and as a woman Dillon" → "and as a woman, Dillon"
  • "but he was entitled to do so once he became" → "but was entitled to do so after becoming"
  • Shouldn't the end of this sentence have a ref?
    • The citations after the following sentence are meant to cover this sentence as well. — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "change inspired the song's title" → "change inspired the title"
  • [10][71] should be both cited once in this sentence and at the end of it since this is only two refs
  • "Peter Brewis deliberately wrote" → "Peter deliberately wrote"
  • "enticing the listener" → "to entice the listener"
  • "often treat the concept" → "often treats the concept"
  • "company called Kimberly-Clark" → "company known as Kimberly-Clark"
    • I didn't really think this change was necessary, but I made it. — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [10][72][14] put in numerical order
  • "David felt the discussion and advertising" → "He felt the discussion and advertising"
  • "has not changed much" → "had not changed much"
  • "and he believed that" → "and David believed that"
  • "as he reflected" → "as is reflected"
  • [6][23] should be after the quote itself instead; however, I think this should be trimmed down, and written out in the para instead of having its own once you have done the former edit.
    • Is this a dealbraker? I really like the inclusion of the quote here; I think his passion for the subject and his exasperation over the situation is very well expressed, in language that I couldn't use in the encyclopedic prose itself... — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not looking to point towards specific things as a "dealbreaker" of sorts, just make sure the article's copyvio score does not remain too high. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "felt some embarrassment" → "felt somewhat embarrassed"
  • "particularly when he first shared it with his wife" → "particularly when first sharing it with his wife"
  • "He also felt embarrassed" → "David also had feelings of embarrassment"
    • I'm not sure I agree with this suggestion. I think it says the same thing but in more words, and changing it to this will create two consecutive sentences starting with "David", which is slightly repetitive... — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can keep it as the original then, but to avoid not having mentioned David by name for too long, change "but he believed" → "but David believed" in the previous sentence --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Liz Corney from the band" → "Liz Corney from Field Music"
  • "both Corney and David's wife" → "David's wife and Corney, respectively,"
    • Changed, but I don't think "respectively" is necessary here? — Hunter Kahn 18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, as it is obvious they are two different people with both, whom agreed on their opinions of the song --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "members of the Imperial War Museum" → "members of the IWM"
  • "he first performed it there, which made him" → "he first performed the song there, which made David"
  • "that approach the topic" → "that approaches the topic"
  • "reflected in some of the lyrics" → "reflected within some of the lyrics"
  • Sure the Indian inventor's inspiration shouldn't maybe be mentioned earlier?
  • "This device was a precursor" → "The device was a precursor"
  • [79][46] put in numerical order
  • "he limited it to" → "he limited the topic to"

Social and cultural movements

  • [12][8] put in numerical order
  • [61][2] ditto
  • [81][82][80][83] ditto
    • I believe all three of the above are now fixed. — Hunter Kahn 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presentation to the League of Nations in the" → "presentation to the League of Nations, in the"
  • "reflect an intention" → "reflects an intention"
  • "Imperial War Museum performances" → "IWM performances"
  • "in the song" → "in the former"
  • [82][81][80] put in numerical order
  • [85][67] ditto
  • "made by Christopher Addison, who was the British" → "made by Christopher Addison, the British" as he is the only person mentioned in the sentence
  • [16][8][10] put in numerical order
  • "In writing the song, he" → "During writing of the song, David"
  • "in London and" → "in London, and"
  • [16][12] put in numerical order and solely at the sentence's end
  • "The song's lyrics are" → "The lyrics of the song are" to make sense with the next fix
  • "and the song was inspired by" → "and it was inspired by"
  • "after the war to encourage" → "after the war for encouraging"
    • I honestly think my original wording is a little less awkward... — Hunter Kahn 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You stay "to" shortly afterwards, so should change to the latter wording instead. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [12][10] put in numerical order and solely at the sentence's end
  • "which David said meant that" → "which David explained as meaning that"
  • Img needs alt text
  • For its main text, wikilink Tiananmen Square
  • "that partially inspired" → "that inspired" since the person known as Tank Man was protesting
  • "were inspired by" → "were both inspired by"
  • Remove wikilinks on China and tanks
  • Wikilink Tiananmen Square
  • "Peter Brewis was inspired" → "Peter was inspired"
  • Remove wikilink on Switzerland
  • "began create art" → "began to create art"
  • "was particularly inspired by Peter's" → "particularly took inspiration from Peter's" to avoid repetitive wording
  • "part of a 1971 piece" → "part of a 1971 performance piece"
  • [16][10][88] put in numerical order
  • ""A Shot in the Arm" includes lyrics" → "The former includes lyrics"
  • "playing a game in which they punch" → "playing a game that sees them punch"
  • "to the Burden's protest piece" → "to the Burden protest piece"
  • "and which David said "was a" → "and David described as "a"
  • "which he described as" → "and described them as"
  • "The song "Money Is a Memory"" → "The track "Money Is a Memory"" to avoid repetitive wording
  • [45][26] put in numerical order and solely at the sentence's end
  • "to write it because he did not" → "to write the track because the former did not" to specify more
  • ""Money is a Memory"" → ""Money Is a Memory""
  • "of the album's theme" → "of Making a New World's theme"
  • "the consequences of World War I" → "World War I's consequences"
  • "into present day" → "into the present day"
  • "David wrote the lyrics from" → "He wrote the lyrics from"
  • "like the conclusion World War I" → "like the conclusion of World War I"
  • "David said of the" → "He said in reference to the"
  • "news release about Making a New World" → "news release about the album"
  • "21st century bureaucracy."" → "21st century bureaucracy"."
    • This is a full sentence quotation so I think it should stay within the quotes. — Hunter Kahn 18:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Present day

  • "various points of the century" I'm guessing this means the 21st century; keep if so but if otherwise, change to "the 20th century"
  • "relevant for present day" → "relevant to the present day"
  • [38][9][67] put in numerical order
  • "David Brewis said the band" → "David said the band"
  • "is still with us."" → "is still with us"."
  • "the modern malaise."" → "the modern malaise"."
  • "where it all went south."" → "where it all went south"."
    • This one I did not change because it's a full sentence. — Hunter Kahn 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "attempted not to be judgmental" → "attempted to not be judgmental"
  • "but they also acknowledged" → "but also acknowledged"
  • [10] should be after the quote instead and maybe trim the latter down a bit?
    • Moved the citation, but again I'd rather keep the block quote if possible. I think occasional block quotes where appropriate help break up the walls of text too. — Hunter Kahn 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but as I said, make sure the article does pass copyvio regulations somehow. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during its IWM performance, the song" → "during its performance for the IWM, the track"
  • Remove wikilink on Middle East
  • "As with "I Thought You Were Someone Else", the band" → "Similarly to "I Thought You Were Someone Else", Field Music"
  • "inspired the song was" → "inspired the track were"
  • Sure a wikilink is needed on Palestine?
  • "also suggested the song" → "also suggested that the track"
  • "of an isolated the United Kingdom's withdrawal" → "of the United Kingdom as isolated after a withdrawal"
  • "specific historical events in" → "specific historical events on"
    • Again, I think "in" is actually correct here... — Hunter Kahn 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • See my earlier addressing of this within the review. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "how those events still" → "how the events still"
  • "with housing crises and opposition" → "with housing crises, and opposition"
  • "present day United Kingdom" → "present day UK"
  • "Beaumont also argued "Money is a Memory"" → "Beaumont also argued that "Money Is a Memory""

Musical style

Suite style

  • "are presented like one continuous suite" → "is presented like one continuous suite"
  • [61][100][65][77] put in numerical order
  • "Peter Brewis said this was done in part" → "Peter said this was done partially"
  • "CJ Thorpe-Tracey of The Quietus said" → "Thorpe-Tracey stated" since you have already introduced him, and said is repetitive wording
    • As with the David/Peter first names, I had been reintroducing full names when they are mentioned in a section for the first time. But I agree with your suggested change; the way I was doing it probably wasn't necessary. — Hunter Kahn 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he praised the album's" → "Thorpe-Tracey praised the album's"
  • "modernist architectural landscapes."" → "modernist architectural landscapes"."
    • This is a full sentence quotation so I believe it is correct as is. — Hunter Kahn 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mix of genres and moods

  • "features a diverse mix" → "features a diverse mixture"
  • [63][102][63] remove second invoking of [63] here
  • Remove wikilinks on rock and pop
  • "Timothy Monger of
    Allmusic said it also has" → "Timothy Monger of AllMusic
    said it also includes"
  • "and chamber pop, and some light prog-rock sophistication"." → "and chamber pop, as well as "some light prog-rock sophistication"."
  • "The Scotsman commented" → "The Scotsman's Fiona Shepherd commented"
  • "was called "a very" → "was noted as "a very"
    • Not really sure why this is an improvement, but I changed it. :D — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • BrooklynVegan should not be italicised
  • "with a handful of reviewers comparing it" either change "a handful" to "some" or add more sources to backup the claim, plus definitely change "it" to the latter
    • Changed it to "some", and also made the other change. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "called it an" → "called Making a New World an"
  • "said the Makng a New World "metamorphoses"" → "claimed the album "metamorphoses"
  • Wikilink funk on this mention, as the previous is more of a sub-genre
  • "said the album ranges" → "said it ranges"
  • "For example," → "Citing an example,"
  • Target vocal harmonies to Vocal harmony
  • Wikilink guitar on this mention, similarly to funk reasoning
  • "which we said exemplified" → "which was said to exemplify"

Changed. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "is at times a breezy" → "is at times breezy"
  • [112][106] put in numerical order
  • "and other times has a solemn and pastoral quality" → "and has a solemn and pastoral quality at other times"
  • [110] should only be cited at the end of the Berridge sentence
    • I thought we were supposed to used citations after every quotation, which is why I had it twice. But I've removed the one you suggested. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the lyrics."" → "in the lyrics"."
    • Full sentence quotation so I believe it's correct. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [65][28][10] put in numerical order
  • "near the end with a series" → "near the end, with a series"
  • Wikilink percussive to Percussion instrument
  • [65][10] put in numerical order
  • "David Brewis said the song" → "David said the song"
  • "made sense a segue" → "made sense for a segue"
  • "said several of the songs" → "wrote that a number of the songs"
  • "have funk elements" → "include funk elements" and remove wikilink on funk
  • ""Money is a Memory"" → ""Money Is a Memory""
  • [43][114][63] put in numerical order
  • Add a ref at the end of the sentence to backup the claim that David composed the songs
    • I think the current reference does this? — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 10 offers no mention of "Money Is a Memory" whatsoever. Fix this issue? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I see now, my mistake. I added a refernece that specifically states he composed the song. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Peter Brewis jokingly said" → "Peter jokingly said"
  • "it's just impossible."" → "it's just impossible"."
    • Full sentence quote, so I believe it's correct. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the musician" → "by American musician"
  • ""Money is a Memory"" → ""Money Is a Memory""
  • "writer Alan O'Hare described" → "writer Alan O'Hare viewed"
  • Cite [116] after the above statement's comma instead of at the sentence's end
  • "called it a" → "called the latter a"
  • Cite ref 75 after the quote from The Arts Desk
  • [102][12][65] put in numerical order
  • "about sanitary towels."" → "about sanitary towels"."
    • Full sentence quote so I think it's correct as is. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having been variously described as" → "having been described as"
  • "and compared to the work" → "while received comparisons to the works"
    • Don't really agree with this one as I think it just makes it wordier, but I changed it. — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No capitalisation for the under mentioning of the Kinks
  • "compared to the style of" → "compared to the musical style of"
  • The should not be capitalised under the mentioning of the Beach Boys
  • "and the acoustic music" → "as well as the acoustic music"
  • The should not be capitalised under the mentioning of the Beatles
  • ""Money is a Memory" to the works of various artists" → ""Money Is a Memory" to the works of various other artists"
    • Capitalized the "Is" but didn't add "other" because it felt like an unnecessary word to me, redundant with "various". — Hunter Kahn 19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be included since you have just mentioned numerous artists that a different track was compared to, but are not mentioned them again here. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "David Bowie's "Fame" era." → "David Bowie, in his "Fame" era."
  • Target R&B to Contemporary R&B

Instrumental pieces

  • "As with Field Music's live performance" → "Similarly to Field Music's live performance"
  • "material at the Imperial War Museum" → "material at the IWM"
  • "among the song" → "among the songs"
  • [112][113][58] put in numerical
  • "NARC Magazine Lee Hammond" → "NARC Magazine's Lee Hammond"
  • "said the pieces" → "claimed the pieces"
  • "David Brewis said the band" → "David stated the band"
  • "were topics they felt" → "were topics that felt"
  • "Among them were" → "Among the pieces were" so it is more specific
  • "Yann Guillo described the" → "Guillo described the"
  • "and that several of them" → "and noted that several of them"
  • "The first two tracks of the album" → "The first two tracks of Making a New World"
  • "intended to represent the exact" → "with the intention of representing the exact"
    • Again, I think this is just wordier and not necessary better, to be honest. But I changed it. — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [112][61][106] put in numerical order
  • "time signatures to portray a sense" → "time signatures, portraying a sense"
  • "Brian Howe called it" → "Brian Howe called the song"
  • [106] should be cited mid sentence instead since that is the PF ref, not 112
    • The number of this citation has changed (is no longer 106) due to the other changes we've made, so I'm not sure which one you are referring to here... — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am referring to the Pitchfork review ref. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah, I think I see now. I believe it's now fixed. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is [112] supposed to be evoked somewhere else instead of here? If so, then fix that.
    • Again, because of the changed numbers, I don't know which one you mean. — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am referrring to The Irish Times review ref. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think this is all resolved now, but let me know if not. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [104][61] put in numerical order
  • [110][100] ditto
  • "writer Jordan Blum said" → "writer Jordan Blum wrote that"
    • The original wording avoids the "writer wrote" redundancy, so perhaps we should keep that? — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the album closer "An Independent State".[64][8][118]" → "and the album's closer, "An Independent State".[8][64][118]"
  • "Each of these songs" → "Each of the tracks"
  • [115][65][102] put in numerical order
  • Wikilink psychedelic rock
  • [112][65][58] put in numerical order
  • "which Blum said incorporates" → "which Blum said incorporate"
  • "of the two songs are" → "of "Pt. 1" is" since it only mentions that part and you can write that as an abbreviation due to having mentioned the full title numerous times within the article
  • "to the compositions around it," → "to the compositions around them,"
  • "that they "sound" →"that the song "sounds"
    • Done, but took the word "sounds" out of the quotation marks so as to not modify the actual quote. — Hunter Kahn 19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and contemplative final track" → "and contemplative closing track"
  • [64][104][8] put in numerical order
  • "with a simple piano tones" → "with simple piano tones"
  • "Hammond called it" → "Hammond called the song"

Vocals and instrumentation

  • Img needs alt text
  • "singing in" → "singing on" within the image's text
    • We seem to disagree on in vs. on in situations like this. LOL Are you sure it's supposed to be "on"? — Hunter Kahn 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, how often would a critic or person write or say "the singing on that song" vs "the singing in that song"? Obviously moreso for the former. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • See, I think it's equally obvious that it's moreso for the latter. But I've changed it to "on" anyway. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "many other Field Music albums" → "many other albums by Field Music"
    • I really don't understand why this change is necessary, but ok... — Hunter Kahn 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [106][28][121] put in numerical order
  • "including on such songs as" → "which are included on songs such as"
  • [18][116][106] put in numerical order
  • Wikilink Slant Magazine
  • "compared David's singing in" → "compared David's singing on"
    • Are you sure? lol
      • Yeah as I explained for this case on the img alt text comment --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Changed it, even though I still disagree. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "of David Byrne of Talking Heads" → "of Talking Heads member David Byrne" to avoid repetitive wording
  • [nb 1] why have you used this where elsewhere, multiple refs are cited at once?
    • This stemmed from suggestions I had gotten on other Field Music album GA/FA reviews. Rather than put all of this content in the body of the article, it was suggested to extract it in this way. — Hunter Kahn 19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "particularly when he" → "particularly when the former"
  • [61][58] put in numerical order
  • "typical of other Field Music works" → "that is typical of other Field Music works"
  • [28][18][77] put in numerical order
  • "such as "Best Kept Garden"" → "including "Best Kept Garden""
  • [112][65][12] put in numerical order
  • "which of The Line of Best Fit wrote "opens" → "which Horton wrote "opens"
  • ""Money is a Memory"" → ""Money Is a Memory""
  • "performances on David Bowie's" → "performances on Bowie's album"
  • "while Alan O'Hare of The Skinny compared it" → "while O'Hare compared the song"
  • "noted the dynamic guitar parts in" → "noted the dynamic guitar parts of"
  • "The piano is also featured prominently" → "The piano is featured prominently too"
  • [112][16] put in numerical order
  • "and Jordan Blum said the song included" → "and Blum noted the song as including"
  • "powerful and pronounced uses of drums" → "powerful and pronounced usage of drums"
  • [106][77][28] put in numerical order
  • "which Ryan Leas said has" → "which Leas said has"

Recording and production

  • "at the Imperial War Museum site" → "at the IWM site"
  • "to Peter Brewis on guitar and David Brewis on drums," → "to Peter and David Brewis on guitar and drums, respectively," per
    WP:NAMES
  • "Kevin Dosdale on guitar, Andrew Lowther on bass guitar, and Liz Corney on keyboards and" → "Dosdale on guitar, Andrew Lowther on bass guitar, and Corney on keyboards as well as"
  • "played through two real-time run-throughs" either through or run-throughs should be changed to something else so the wording is not repetitive
    • Removed the first "through" altogether. — Hunter Kahn 19:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [17][102][15] put in numerical order
  • "and then the Brewis brothers later picked" → "and the Brewis brothers then picked"
  • "David said those two run-throughs account" → "David said the two run-throughs accounted"
  • "though the Brewis brothers and Corney" → "though the brothers and Corney"
  • "completed in the band's new studio" → "completed at the band's new studio"
  • Add the location of the previous studio
  • "The album's production" → "The former's production" to specify what album you mean
  • "by Peter and David" → "by David and Peter"
  • [126][43][54] put in numerical order
  • Sure a ref or multiple ones shouldn't be evoked at the end of the sentence?
    • The same refs in the subsequent sentence as meant to apply to this one as well. — Hunter Kahn 19:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then recorded them with the full band" → "then recorded them as the full band"
  • [15][126][54][127] put in numerical order
  • "strange process for the band" → "strange process for Field Music"
  • "Though Peter and David were" → "Though David and Peter were"
  • "all tracks are formally credited" → "every track is formally credited"

Release

  • Retitle to Release and promotion
  • "The forthcoming release of Making a New World was first announced on 18 September 2019" → "The release of Making a New World for 10 January 2020 was announced on 18 September 2019"
  • "the same day as the release of the album's first single" → "the announcement coming the same day as the release of the album's lead single"
  • "was released on 20 November" → "was released on 20 November 2019"
  • "The third single," → "The third single from Making a New World," since you haven't mentioned the they are the album singles since two sentences back
  • "was released 11 December" → "was on released 11 December of that year"
  • [82][81] put in numerical order
  • [70][69] ditto but shouldn't they be at the end of the sentence?
    • Fixed the order and placement. — Hunter Kahn 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "released 3 January 2020" → "was released 3 January 2020"
  • "The band announced that day" → "That same day, Field Music announced"
  • "was released on 10 January" → "was released on 10 January 2020"
  • Change digital to digital download and target to Music download
  • Sure you shouldn't mentioned the label(s) released through?
    • I think this was already covered elsewhere in the article? — Hunter Kahn 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's fine to have information like labels repeated as long as it's not direct repetition in different sections. This is more relevant to the Release and promotion section anyway, since it deals with the release of the album. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "marked Field Music's first new album" → "marked Field Music's first album" as it is obviously new
  • "David Brewis' solo project" → "David's solo project"
  • "2019 the same year that Peter Brewis" → "2019 and that same year, Peter"
  • "with a red pressing was released" → "with a red pressing was also released on 10 January 2020"
  • "two live tracks from Making a New World" → "two live tracks from the album"
  • "throughout the United Kingdom" → "throughout the UK"
  • "Most of the tour performances" → "Most of the performances for the tour"
  • "created by Kevin Dosdale" → "created by Dosdale"
  • "the original Imperial War Museum shows" → "the original shows of the IWM"
    • Done, though I would have gone with just "original IWM shows". — Hunter Kahn 20:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • [128][57][134] put in numerical order
  • "planned to play a few" → "planned to perform a few"
  • [134][108] put in numerical order
  • "because their limited ability to mix" → "because of their limited ability to mix"
  • "that could accommodate them" → "that could accommodate the visuals" to be more specific
  • "in smaller record stores" → "in small record stores" unless you can use something for a comparison of smaller
  • "in regarding presenting" → "in terms of regarding presenting"
  • "Those shows ran from" → "The shows ran from"
  • Fix spelling error of Mancester to Manchester but don't wikilink
  • "in such stores as" → "including the stores of"
  • "as the Brudenell Social Club and" → "as the Brudenell Social Club, and"
  • [69][43] put in numerical order
  • [136][128][137] ditto

Sales

  • "When Making a New World debuted, it reached as high as No. 35" → "Making a New World reached number 35"
  • "reaching position No. 84" → "reaching position number 84"
  • "period dating back to Field Music (Measure) (2010)." → "period, dating back to Field Music (Measure) in 2010."
  • "also reached No. 12 on the" → "further opened at number 12 on the"

Critical reception

  • There is a 10 score limit per
    MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template
    . You do have more reviews to add to the scores but have chosen not to for some reason; add the five other most notable reviews here
  • "Making a New World was well-received by most critics, with an aggregated Metacritic rating of 73/100 based upon 18 reviews, which the website characterised as "generally positive reviews".[143] The album also received an aggregated rating of 7.2/10 on AnyDecentMusic? based upon 22 reviews.[144]" → "Making a New World was met with generally positive reviews from music critics. At Metacritic, the album received an average score of 75, based on 22 reviews.[143] Aggregator AnyDecentMusic? gave it 7.2 out of 10, based on their assessment of the critical consensus.[144]"
  • This section is way too extensive; see the recently passed GA Ye for an example of how long critical reception should be. However, keep positive reviews alongside the few non-positive to lead the article to remaining neutral.
    • I have to disagree. This section is consistent with feedback I've received in past GA and FA review processes for other Field Music albums such as Commontime (album) and Open Here. Rather than just a collection of review blurbs, the section is organized by specific statements and themes (i.e., "Many reviewers described Making a New World as an ambitious album...", "...described it as a particularly niche and idiosyncratic work...", "...too many ideas and narrative elements to form a cohesive album...", etc.) which are supported by {{#tag:ref}} notes as well as occasional quotes. As for interspersing positive and non-positive, I have been specifically told not to do this in the past, and to instead put them into specific sections so they won't get lost in the shuffle, which is why most of the negative comments about the article are paired together. I don't think there is much risk of coming across as non-neutral, however, as the article clearly states both here and in the lead that not all reviews were positive. — Hunter Kahn 20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant with my initial comments that you mix positive and non-positive as in putting positive first, then having non-positive after them – with mixed coming first, then negative. However, the extensiveness is now something I do not see issue with after having heard that this has been consistent for your Field Music albums, and nothing at
        WP:RECEPTION writes against you; just remember not to be too repetitive with wording though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • The lists in the last para of the section should be split into an accolades sub-section.
  • "PopMatters writer Jordan Blum said" → "Blum said"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Lee Hammon of NARC Magazine called" → "Hammon called"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Uncut writer Sharon O'Connell said the album was delivered" → "O'Connell said the album is delivered"
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Victoria Segal of Q described" → "Victoria Segal from Q described" for variety
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Meg Berridge of Gigwise wrote" → "Berridge wrote"
  • "enthralling to listen to."" → "enthralling to listen to"."
  • Only done the first para but will take a look at the rest after you make the initial fixes I mentioned, since this will probably have influence on what changes you will need to make; one tip would be to not reintroduce people who have already been introduced
    • I did make changes so that reviewers already introduced elsewhere in the article were not introduced again. But I guess we need to have further conversation about this, since we disagree about this section. I respect your opinion of course and have incorporated almost all of your edits so far, but I feel it's already fairly condensed (there is a LOT more I could have included that I left out) and I don't really feel significantly scaling it back would benefit the article. I'm hoping we can work it would, though, and that the article won't fail simply because of this... — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, you won't fail. I will take another look at this soon. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continued assessment

  • I did state on this very page that I would take a look at the remainder of the critical reception section after you had made the initial changes, separated into this sub-heading so it is not confusing to read; comments for improvement can be seen below. --Kyle Peake (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The score box looks a lot better; however, replace Mojo with Exclaim! here, as the latter is a more notable publication.
  • "with several calling it" → "with several of them calling it" to be more specific with the meaning of several
  • Are you sure [nb 3] is needed since there is only two refs under it?
    • Removed that and just used the two citations. — Hunter Kahn 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Steven Johnson of musicOMH wrote" → "Steven Johnson wrote" since we already know he is from musicOMH, but two Johnsons have been mentioned
  • "the favorable reviews complimented" → "the favourable reviews complimented" since this is not an American article
  • Wikilink on Evening Standard
  • "writer Harry Fletcher said the band's" → "writer Harry Fletcher claimed that the band's" as that flows a lot better in prose
  • "but that listeners who approached" → "but that those who approached"
  • "turned off but the album's concept" → "turned off by the album's concept"
  • "found that the album" → "found that Making a New World"
  • "once delved into it and explored its" → "after having delved into it and explored the"
  • "He wrote: "Suddenly" → "He claimed that "suddenly" since that quote is in the middle of a sentence from the source
  • Are you sure [nb 8] is needed since there is only three refs under it? Same for [nb 9], [nb 10], [nb 12], [nb 13], and [nb 15].
    • The notes were not only used in instances of three or more citations, but to provide a bit more context about the specific reviewer statements. If you really insist on my removing them and replacing them with just citations, I will, but I personally perfer it this way and don't think it harms anything. — Hunter Kahn 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "poignant and delightful"." sure the punctuation shouldn't be inside the quote per
    WP:QUOTEMARK
    ?
  • "Monger called it an" → "Monger labelled it an" to avoid repetitive wording
  • "nevertheless described it as" → "described it as"
  • "said it was unlikely" → "believed it was unlikely"
  • Wikilink on The Sydney Morning Herald
  • "and that it did not" the concept or the album? Instate which instead of "it".
  • "resulted in a stiffness to the album" → "resulted in a stiffness to it"
  • "Brian Howe of Pitchfork felt the album" → "Howe felt the album"
  • "Kaelen Bell of Exclaim! said" → "Bell said"
  • Why is Howe's quote directly after this when you already started on his review earlier?
    • This quote is referring specifically to the new criticism introduced in this part of the paragraph, about some critics disliking the concept altogether. So though I've quoted other parts of Howe's review before, I'm returning to it here because he also addresses this particularly criticism. — Hunter Kahn 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reviewers felt the album" → "reviewers felt Making a New World"
  • "felt the concept was strong but that the songs" → "felt that the concept was strong but the songs"
  • [78][77][95] put in numerical order
  • "NME writer Mark Beaumont said" → "Beaumont said"
  • "while Phil Mongredien of The Observer wrote" → "while Phil Mongredien from The Observer wrote" to avoid repetitive wording and add the wikilink
  • "even those who reviewed the overall album positively" → "even those who reviewed the album positively overall"
  • Don't think the final para is needed, since that is heavily repeating a lot of what is in the earlier sections.
    • Only some of these bands were mentioned before, and others not at all. And most of the earlier references to some of those bands compared certain songs or elements of the album (like Byrne's vocals on "Only in a Man's World", for example) not the album as a whole like in this paragraph. — Hunter Kahn 19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand that, but the opinion of every single critic doesn't need to be listed; there's already been enough reviews written out in prose to form multiple paras and give an overview of what critics thought in the lead, which has absolutely no mention of this para – you can remove it. --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

  • "when they were each released" → "when they were released in September and November 2019, respectively" to specify that it was not at the time of the album's release that the songs made the list
  • "included Making a New World in its list of the top 7" → "included the album in its list of the top seven"
    MOS:NUMBERS
  • "and it also made" → "and Making a New World also made"
  • "the week of its release" → "that same week"

Track listing

  • "all tracks credited as having been written by all five members of the band" → "all tracks were credited as having been written by all five members of Field Music"
  • Add the AllMusic ref used in personnel after Making a New World track listing to verify that is the track list
    • I believe I've done this, but let me know if this isn't what you meant. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

  • Add "Credits adapted from AllMusic" at the top of the section before both musicians and technical personnel, with the AM ref solely cited at the end of the added credits statement
    • I had a little trouble making the formatting work when I tried including it in both subsections. Would putting it at the top of the overall section (as I've just done) work? — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I just fixed the typo you made though. --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charts

  • Sales chart performance subheading is not needed, since that is obvious

See also

  • Are you sure linking to such a large list is necessary?
    • Oh, someone else must have added that, I didn't even realize it was there and I don't agree with its inclusion. LOL I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Notes

  • "writer Caleb Campbell said the band" → "writer Caleb Campbell said Field Music"
  • "in the song positions Field Music" → "on the song position the band"
  • Speaking in Tongues should be italicised
  • AllMusic should have this time of capitalisation and not be italicised
    • I believe I've fixed the spelling and italics everywhere, but if I missed any please let me know or feel free to change it yourself. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPR shouldn't be italicised
  • "it as the band's " → "it as their"
  • "called the album "its most" → "called the album the band's "most"
  • "Steven Johnson of musicOMH called" → "Johnson called"
  • "Allmusic writer Timothy Monger described" → "AllMusic writer Timothy Monger described"
  • "Irish Times writer Siobhán Kane called" → "Kane labelled"
  • "Steven Johnson of musicOMH called it" → "Johnson called it
  • "stuff" and said it "excels" → "stuff" that "excels"
  • "The Sydney Morning Herald writer Barnaby Smith described" → "Smith described"
  • "Timothy Monger of Allmusic wrote" → "Monger wrote that"
  • "the Brewis Brothers' hands."" → "the Brewis Brothers' hands"."
  • Name the Uncut writer
    • Added the name, and since they have already been introduced I changed it simply to "O'Connell said". — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and wrote that" → "and claimed that"
  • "of this sophistication."" → "of this sophistication"."
    • It's a full sentence quote so I think this way is correct. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Anil Prasad of Innerviews wrote" → "Prasad wrote"
  • "and melodically memorable."" → "and melodically memorable
    • Again, full sentence quote. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wrote that the album was challenging" → "wrote that Making a New World was challenging"
  • "the time to truly engage."" → "the time to truly engage"."
    • Again, full sentence quote. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but that the album is worth" → "but that it is worth"
  • "said the album might take" → "claimed the album might take"
  • "bit it is" → "but it is"
  • "Caleb Campbell of Under the Radar, who" → "Campbell, who"
  • "Alan O'Hare of The Skinny wrote:" → "O'Hare wrote:" but are you sure the quote is needed since it has already been quoted, or if keeping this shouldn't you reword it at least?
    • Modified the name and replace the quote with a scaled back paraphrasing. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to truly engage."" → "to truly engage"."
    • This was eliminated per above. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Bill Pearis of BrooklynVegan wrote" → "Pearis wrote"
  • "lot more captivating."" → "lot more captivating"."
  • "The Line of Best Fit writer Ross Horton said of the album" → "Horton said of Making a New World"
  • "told you in advance."" → "told you in advance"."
  • "so strangely funky."" → "so strangely funky"."
  • "Bill Pearis of BrooklynVegan said an understanding of the concept" → "Pearis said an understanding of the concept for Making a New World"
  • "in the album's linear notes" → "in the liner notes"
  • "come with the album."" → "come with the album"."
  • "called the album was" → "claimed the album was"
    • Went instead with just "called the album", if that works for you? If not I'll change it to your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Robert Ham of Paste said" → "Ham stated"
  • "called it a" → "called Making a New World a"
  • "said the variety" → "stated the variety"
  • "Morning Star writer Ian Sinclair described" → "Sinclair described"
  • "Yann Guillo of Sound of Violence called" → "Guillo called"
  • "daMusic writer Patrick Van Gestel said" → "Van Gestel said"
  • "made the album feel like" → "made Making a New World feel like"
  • "Caleb Campbell of Under the Radar said the album" → "Campbell claimed the album"
  • "NARC Magazine writer James F. Anderson described Making the New World" → "F. Anderson described it as"
    • Since "F." is just a middle initial, I also removed that and just made it "Anderson". — Hunter Kahn 21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure though, since you have reused middle names elsewhere? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have I? I didn't intend to, so if I did, can you point them out or remove the initials for me? — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Thorpe-Tracey" I know it's a double barrel name but that's close enough. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Caleb Campbell of Under the Radar called" → "Campbell called"
  • "and said "the" → "and wrote that "the"
  • "said the album attempts" → "said Making a New World attempts"
  • "Hot Press writer Stephen Porzio, who was otherwise" → "Porzio, who was generally"
  • "Caleb Campbell of Under the Radar:" → "Campbell wrote:"
  • "but the overall album" → "but overall, it"
  • "Mike Evans of The Citizens' Voice felt Making a New World" → "Mike Evans of The Citizens' Voice felt that it"
  • "Hot Press writer Stephen Porzio said the album's concept" → "Porzio said the concept of Making a New World"
  • "liked the album" → "was complementary of the album"
  • "The Citizens' Voice writer Mike Evans felt" → "Evans felt"
  • "far too seriously."" → "far too seriously"."

Citations

  • Some of the ref numbers may have changed since I listed the issues with this sub-section after your responses to issues with other sections; try to attribute any that may appear misnumbered to one likely close to them in terms of numbering that meets the criteria listed below, as that will likely be the correct ref. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did indeed find a few more after the changes made from this GAN review, and I've fixed them. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvio is too high on refs 5, 8, 16; make sure to fix this, can be done by reducing the number of quotes and putting things into your own words but still having it make sense
    • I've made some edits to reduce this. Looking at the comparisons in Copyvio, basically all the remaining flagged text are song titles, lyrics, or direct quotations... — Hunter Kahn 21:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do most refs with a p number not need URLs as I'm confused since a few do have them included like The Guardian?
    • The ones that only have a page number and no URL were offline sources that I used; i.e., physical magazine articles or newspaper articles I found using Lexis Nexis or Newsbank (which provides the date and page numbers). If an online version is available as well, I will include that along with the page number, but some of the ones on this article aren't available online. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 3 is missing a URL and target of The Morning Sun to its page; add an access date too after fixing those issues
    • This is another offline source I got from Lexis and/or Newsbank. Usually they have page numbers, and when they do I always include them, but this one does not, nor did it have an online version. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense, but you still need to add the wikilink. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added one, but there doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia entry for this newspaper, so it's a redlink currently. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Should be wikilinked to
            The Morning Sun (Pittsburg), my bad for not pointing to the exact page; I'll fix this for you! --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
            ]
  • Memphis Industries should not be italicised
  • Are you sure ref 12 is from February 2002? Also, remove wikilinks on refs to David's wiki after this one.
    • Oops, no, that should be 2020. Fixed that and removed the subsequent David wikilinks. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Complete Music Update should not be italicised
    • Changed to publisher to remove the italics. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 should state Peter as you have already mentioned David Brewis; same for ref 47 and use David's second mention on the latter ref as solely his forename
    • I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're looking for here? — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not required to mention the Brewis surname twice on the same ref(s) when it has already been established that David and Peter are related. Understand now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe this is fixed now. — Hunter Kahn 18:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rough Trade should not be italicised
    • Changed to publisher to remove the italics. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allmusic should be AllMusic and not italicised
    • Fixed the spelling, and changed to publisher to remove the italics. — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 83 shouldn't wikilink Peter Brewis since that is pointless, linking to Field Music's page
  • On ref 89, you can just state David since you already said Peter Brewis; same for 98 and 134, and the second mention of Peter on the former should just be his forename
    • I think I've addressed this now, but let me know if I haven't... — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 97 date?
  • Is ref 116 definitely from February 2002?
    • That also should've been 2020. Fixed! — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For refs 130, 131, 132 and 133, best to replace per
    WP:TWITTER
    • I removed the first two altogether because they were just backing up something that was already cited by something else. The other two are the only citations available for their respective sentences, but they are both official Twitter accounts so I think it should be acceptable in this limited use, right? — Hunter Kahn 20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah since it's not from the Field Music Twitter account, which would violate
        WP:SELFPUB. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
        ]
  • Ref 135 should mention Peter without the surname and David's second mention should only be his forename
  • Cite Official Charts Company for refs 138, 139, 141 and 142; also, remove italicisation on ref 140 for it
  • Ref 147 is not formatted properly

Works cited

  • What's up with a and b, respectively, after works one and two; why is that included?
    • I use the "harvnb" template to directly link citations to these works cited, which I find to be an excellent system overall. However, when there are two separate works cited that have the same author and the same year, the template page suggests adding the A and B to the end of the year so that they can each be linked to and not mixed up with each other. See Template:Harvard citation no brackets#More than one work in a year. — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you sure multiple publishers should be included here in parts?
    • I've done this kind of thing in other GAs/FAs before and it was considered ok... — Hunter Kahn 21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Final comments and verdict

  • Will continue with the other sections soon, hard work from you on this though! --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  On hold for two weeks as this article is very large, good luck though! --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kyle Peake I believe I've addressed all of the initial comments you've made, though I know you may have some follow-up remarks (and indeed it looks like you've already made some). I have to run right now, but I will try to look at the follow-ups you made later tonight or tomorrow, and am more than willing to work with you on any other improvements you think are necessary. Thank you so much for your comprehensive review; I think this is the most thorough GAN review I've ever been involved with! — Hunter Kahn 21:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hunter Kahn I'm very thankful of you too for the hard work and it is good to know that you will respond to my further comments soon, also I have responded to you in multiple areas of confusion. --Kyle Peake (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn There are comments that I clearly stated are for the new lead that you still need to respond to before I can pass this as a GA, as well as the accolades sub-section. --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hunter Kahn all you need to do is fix the reception and this should be good to go! --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I kept in the PJ Harvey bit, if that's OK with you, but otherwise I cut that paragraph you had suggested we eliminate. Thanks Kyle Peake! — Hunter Kahn 19:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hunter Kahn: ✓ Pass time has come, since you have made the necessary fixes... strong work on this, well done! --Kyle Peake (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks again Kyle Peake for your very thorough review and your patience in working through it with me! — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Making_a_New_World&oldid=1208727641"