Talk:The Colour and the Shape/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, I'm gonna give this article a review. I'll be making copyedits directly to the article, some of which I may explain here in greater depth if I think it's warranted. If you disagree with any of the changes I make, feel free to bring it up here; I'll explain my reasoning if necessary and we can hash it out, or I may see that the original was right in the first place.

Lead

"Although the music press generally speculated the band's sophomore record would showcase grunge-inspired garage rock, the band's intention was to make a proper rock record." — There's also a sentence in the lead about this, but this one is from the "Background" section. I looked up a reprint of the cited source and found this. I don't really see anything about music press expectations of a grungey sound (the word "grunge" doesn't appear) or the Foo desire to make a "proper" rock record. I suppose it's possible I found an incomplete reprint, or that you mixed up which source the info came from, but either way I think more clarity is needed here. I get what the sentences mean about a distinction between "more grunge" or "proper rock", but I think a general/unfamiliar reader could fail to understand the distinction—for one thing, it could be a little confusing in light of the fact that the album is nevertheless considered to be "post-grunge".
"Critics found the album a significant American rock release of the era" — I reworded "found" to "deemed"; there are other words that could work, but "found" isn't quite right. A critic can "find" innate/textual aspects of an album—they can find that the lyrics are more introspective than earlier efforts, for instance—but they cannot "find" contextual/metatextual aspects, like its broader significance within the rock music of its time. That significance wasn't an innate quality to be discovered, it was a judgment rendered.
"The album's track listing was designed to resemble a therapy session, splitting the album between uptempo tracks and ballads, reflecting conflicting emotions." — no follow-up on the "therapy" part in the article body, as far as I can tell. The article body contradicts the statement that it's "split" between uptempo tracks and ballads, because the text later says there are three types of tracks: uptempo tracks, ballads, and mixes of both songforms.
"The singles "Monkey Wrench", "Everlong" and "My Hero" peaked within the top ten of US rock radio charts, and the album charted at number three in the United Kingdom." — It seems arbitrary to mix aspects of the US and UK commercial performance into one sentence while omitting other aspects, considering the album also reached the top ten of the Billboard 200—a noteworthy feat. I've expanded this to: "The singles "Monkey Wrench", "Everlong", and "My Hero" peaked within the top ten of US rock radio charts, and the album charted at number ten on the Billboard 200. The album was also an international commercial success, peaking at number three in the United Kingdom." Feel free to reword the second sentence.
Given the significance of this album as the Foos' first "full band" effort, the full band roster should be introduced by name—if not in the lead, than in the "Background" section. In some cases it could be helpful to introduce other biological info—for example, it's probably worth mentioning that Pat Smear had previously played together with Grohl as a touring member of Nirvana.
This is a preliminary thought since I haven't read the full article body yet, but I think the structure/sequencing of the lead could be improved. It's a bit odd that the text starts talking about the recording sessions, then goes into the contents (lyrical and musical) of the album, then returns to wrap up the sessions. It interrupts the "making of" component; it would make more sense to talk about aborted sessions before you've brought up the finalized contents of the album. That said, I still want to read thru everything first before making any concrete recommendations about this because I'll have a better sense of how well the article is summarized.
Random thought: I see that there's some explanation for the choice of title a little further on, but there's one thing I just wondered about: Why "colour" with a "u" from an American band? Is there anything in any sources about why they chose that spelling? Not an essential tidbit, especially if it's unexplained in sources, just makes me curious. —BLZ · talk 22:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment: Don't want to step on your toes Danny if you already had the answer to BLZ's last question at your fingertips, but I remembered reading about this before and a quick Google search found a reliable ref, so I'm including it here (the info is in the 1995–1998 section of the ref): [[1]]. I'm a fan of this album, btw, and glad to see someone bringing it to GA. Incidentally, my Japanese release has one bonus track: "Dear Lover". I'll try to add it to the article when I get a chance in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 02:32, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate any and all drive-by comments in an earnest effort to help. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question, however. Which section would this go in? I could guess, but I'd like to make sure. dannymusiceditor ^oops 18:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Danny. I would put it right where your talking about the naming of the album (third paragraph of Recording and production, possibly right after "The group found it arbitrary and hilarious and decided on that title, rather than base the title on the theme or mood of the music.").

I have one other suggestion. About the "I don't know if I'm finished playing the drums yet", did you mention that he used to play the drums in Nirvana (it's possible you did and I missed it)? Some readers may not know. That's all from me (I'll let BLZ finish his review!). I enjoyed this article. Moisejp (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Background

Other than my note above about introducing the full band by name, this section is solid. One issue: "eventually leading bassist Nate Mendel to enhance his musical formation." I don't understand what that means. —BLZ · talk 23:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with you, but I don't know what I would replace it with. Do you have any suggestions? I tried "effort", "skill", both of those, but those all seem also wrong. dannymusiceditor ^oops 17:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Sorry for the long absence. As chance would have it, I ended up being busy IRL over virtually the same period that you were. I am back now and will be continuing the review soon. —BLZ · talk 21:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recording and production

I copyedited this section a little while ago but I have no further "big picture"-type comments and I think it was very well done. A good and compelling history.

Composition

I haven't done a line-by-line through this section yet, other than the first paragraph, which I think is good. But I'm a little confused about the second paragraph. It seems redundant, in both purpose and content, to what follows in the track-by-track description. For example:

From the second paragraph: "The album's opener, 'Doll', involves the fear of entering into situations unprepared."
Then from the third paragraph/first paragraph of the "Track information" subsection: "Grohl stated that 'Doll' was 'basically a song about being afraid to enter into something you're not prepared for.'"

This strikes me as substantially the same information. I'll go through this section in greater depth later, but for now I think you should try to reorganize to cut down on some of these redundancies.

Done. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release

"just before the 1997 MTV Video Music Awards" – what is the significance of this? I'm assuming they performed at it, and if that's the case you should say so.
What about the other two singles?
Speaking of "Everlong", what about the band's performance on Letterman (or other TV appearances, if any)? These kinds of appearances are noteworthy in and of themselves, but the Letterman performance seems especially worth mentioning given that Letterman was famously wowed by the Foo Fighters and later described "Everlong" as his all-time favorite song.

I did mention this, but it's in track information. I thought it flowed better in there considering the whole Letterman thing happened in 2000 rather than around the album's release. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about the album's commercial performance/sales? I don't think there has to be too much, but there should be some prose description of the album's chart performance in the US and UK at the least, plus major certifications. The info's already on the page in tables, but some of it should also be written out.

Done as requested, but it is pretty short. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:50, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

The last paragraph about the reissue would probably fit better in the "Release" section.
But speaking of the reissue, it would be good to include some retrospective reviews. Your coverage of contemporary reviews is good, but plenty of music publications reviewed the reissue; here's Pitchfork's reassessment.

Did the Pitchfork review you provided and added an additional PopMatters anniversary review. If you want another, I have a 20-year anniversary article from Spin on queue. dannymusiceditor ^oops 16:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

Not sure about this section; Acclaimed Music-style lists of an album or song's appearances on "best" lists have generally fallen out of favor, but even beyond it's unsourced. Plus, the section only includes two Kerrang! lists. The Colour and the Shape's page on Acclaimed Music lists more than that. I'd find a way to work this into the "Critical reception" section in prose form.

Agreed. Working on this. dannymusiceditor ^oops 15:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my earlier comments still need addressing as well. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: Hi Danny! Just checking in. The article somehow dropped off my watchlist, so it's been out of mind for a little while. How is this coming? I'm not sure which of my earlier review comments/questions you've responded to. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ohhhhh boy... This one slipped me too to be honest and I'm honestly surprised you haven't failed it yet, but I can finish it tomorrow if you'd like. I can commit to at least getting a good chunk of it done tomorrow. dannymusiceditor ^oops 02:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah no worries! Mutual mistake lol. I'm more interested in improving the article and getting it to the level it needs to be. I can probably fully get back to it on the 5th, so if you can get a good chunk done tomorrow that should work. —BLZ · talk 02:49, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Brandt Luke Zorn: A reminder to take another look at this. I believe I did everything you asked to the best of my ability? dannymusiceditor ^oops 14:52, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looked over the most recent changes one more time and I'm gonna pass it, I believe this meets all the GA criteria. Many of my comments were more in the spirit of a peer review than a GA review, anyway, so it's a little over the GA hurdle at this point. I'm still a little concerned about the apparent mismatch between the source and the text for the statements about the press expecting "grunge" and the Foo Fighters intending "rock", but it's not so severe that it bars it from GA status. Great job! And thank you for your patience. —BLZ · talk 00:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]