Talk:Title TK

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Title TK/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 07:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting article - I'll take this on. Will post comments later. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 07:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Initial thoughts

I'm going to dive straight in here, I hope that's OK. This is a well-written article on a pretty interesting record - I haven't heard it, but I'm familiar with the Breeders, and I saw the Pixies twice (in 1988 and 1989, both times at Rock City).

There are a number of things that might need tweaking (e.g. the "Charts" section: I'm pretty sure this album didn't chart in 1986 as it says here), but before I carry out a detailed review I'd better point out what I think is a major flaw with the article. As I see it, the article seems unbalanced, with detailed coverage given to the background and recording of the album, and not enough space given to the actual record itself.

What I mean by this is that the article hardly mentions the musical content of the album at all, but instead focuses too heavily on what happened in the run up to and during the recording process. Since this article is about the album itself, and not just the recording of it, I'd expect to see a couple of paragraphs (or even a whole section) that describe the content of the album - what does it sound like?

Following on from this, the "Release and reception" section also seems a little light, especially given the amount of detail contained in the recording sections.

Point three of the Good Article criteria set out at WP:GACR states that a GA should be "broad in its coverage....addressing the main aspects of the topic", and as it stands I don't this article is broad enough. Though this isn't insurmountable by any means, I realise that this may take some time to resolve - do you think this can be addressed in the time it takes to carry out a GA review? — sparklism ^hey! 09:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sparklism. Thanks very much for taking on this review! I am going to do my utmost to speedily scour my sources for enough further content to satisfy your concerns. I will update you here on my progress within a few days. Thanks again, Moisejp (talk) 03:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That's great - it seems like you've waited an awful long time for a review, so good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 06:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've looked at my sources, and am quite confident that I have enough content to write at least a couple-paragraph Songs section—or likely a longer one if all goes well. I plan to start on that pronto. Since I have never been reviewed by you before, I just wanted to confirm whether you may or may not have strict ideas of when you would like everything resolved by. Or if you see that I am working on it steadily, is that enough? As you mentioned, I've been waiting a long time for this review, and I'd be shattered if the article failed because of any misunderstanding about deadline expectations. Just let me know, thanks! Moisejp (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly new to reviewing (this is only my fourth GA as a reviewer) but I don't see any real need to set a hard time limit here. If you're working on it, then I'm happy to keep the review open as long as there is progress. Remember that I haven't really given a detailed review yet - this was just my initial concern; we can do the detailed stuff once you've fixed this problem. — sparklism ^hey! 11:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Sparklism. If what I have added so far to the article is substantial enough for you, I think I am pretty much ready for you to continue your review. I have added a Music and lyrics section, and a few more sentences to the Release and reception section. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Second look

OK, I can see you've made a real difference to the balance of the article, and that addresses the major concern that I had above - great stuff. I must say that the article looks pretty sharp by this point, and there shouldn't be too much to do to bring it up to GA status. I'll break my thoughts down by section (and I might make some minor tweaks to the article myself as I go along):

Infobox

• I see that the cover image has been changed in the last day or two (and not by you) - are you happy with the new image and it's FUR?

• It seems fine to me. There are multiple variations on the cover in existence, and the one that editor provided is just as valid as the one before. The FUR also seems thorough. Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• No mention of a producer here?

• The producer is kind of a tricky issue that I think it is safer to avoid. In the liner notes, Albini, Arnold, and Alekel are credited with "recorded by"--no mention of "producer". Some might argue that they were likely de facto producers, but strictly speaking, "recorded by" suggests a less active role in the song development; hence, I have consistently referred to them as "(recording) engineers" in the article. Also, here [1] Albini says "Steve Albini was the principal engineer for the Electrical Audio sessions, though "production" was the exclusive domain of Kim and the band in collaboration." Moisejp (talk) 06:33, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• OK. — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Lead

• "In the four years following the group's second album, Last Splash, in 1993, several members left the band. From 1997 onwards..." This just doesn't read clearly enough, especially for the second sentence of the lead. How about something along the lines of: "Following the release of the group's second album Last Splash in 1993, several members left the band. Breeders' singer and songwriter Kim Deal made multiple attempts to record tracks for a follow-up album, and in 1997 she spent time in studios...."?

• In 1995, Wiggs and Kelley Deal left. Carrie Bradley was an on-again off-again member (I'm not sure if she was ever an official member—maybe—or maybe more a sometimes in-studio, sometimes in-concert support musician), but after the 1996 tour she was gone again. MacPherson, Farley, and Lerma left in 1997 during Deal's initial attempts to record the third album. I was trying to come up with a sentence that mainly encompassed Wiggs and Kellley's leaving in 1995 and the three former Amps in 1997. Your suggestion is in some ways good, but I'm afraid just "Following the release..." might sound like "Shortly after the release..." Hmm, maybe I just need an altogether different approach. I'm thinking about it right now... Moisejp (talk) 06:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• My other concern is that "Breeders' singer and songwriter Kim Deal made multiple attempts to record tracks for a follow-up album, and in 1997 she spent time in studios..." kind of sounds like she made attempts before 1997, but actually her attempts seem to have begun in 1997. Moisejp (talk) 06:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• OK, I have attempted to fix that paragraph. See what you think. Moisejp (talk) 06:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Certainly, that's a big improvement. I was tempted just to take out the words "...between 1995 and 1997" from the end of the second sentence (because I think it's simpler and flows better, and since the next sentence starts with "In 1997..."), but I stopped myself because of the point you made above about the timings of various departures. That said, this is only the lead we are talking about - the actual details are covered in the main body of the article, so maybe we should just go for the simpler version in the lead, after all. What do you think? — sparklism ^hey! 08:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have rewritten the sentence. Does it work for you? Moisejp (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's great :) — sparklism ^hey! 12:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• "The group continued recording sessions with Albini in 2001. The output from the Albini sessions was supplemented with..." → "The group continued recording with Albini in 2001, and the output from these sessions was supplemented with..."

• I have changed this second one per your suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 05:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Background and initial recording attempts

• "The 1997 sessions took place at four different New York studios. This cost hundreds of thousands of dollars..." → "The 1997 sessions took place at four different New York studios, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars..."

• I have changed it to "The 1997 sessions took place at four different New York studios, which cost hundreds of thousands..." Does this work for you? Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, OK. — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Not only various musicians, but also multiple recording engineers, parted ways with Deal during the year..." This isn't the right way to start a new paragraph, but the correct way escapes me for the moment - is there a better way to say "not only various musicians"? (I'll have a think on this later)

• I've taken a stab at rewriting this. Let me know what you think. Moisejp (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• That's much better. — sparklism ^hey! 08:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Subsequent recording and coalescence of the group

• "Deal took 1998 off from musical activity." This feels too informal to me, how about "Deal spent 1998 away from any musical activity."?

• I've decided maybe it's better to directly quote the source here, because it is hard to paraphrase precisely. I have changed it to "Deal then spent 'a lost year' in which she '[went] AWOL in New York'." Let me know if this works for you, or if you have a better suggestion. The source says "By 1998, she decided to jack it in and go AWOL in New York. 'It was a lost year, and a lot of fun," she says, unrepentant." Another source (Kot) says it wasn't a fun year but was depressing: " 'It got bad in 1998,' Kim Deal says. 'I was pretty depressed before I came to Steve.' " So, anyway, from these two quotes it may be hard to extrapolate that there definitely was no musical activity going on (plus, she may have been practicing the drums some that year, which could be argued as being "musical activity"). So this direct quote is my best idea for how to account for 1998. Moisejp (talk) 06:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• That seems sensible. — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• "...but was left off of the album." → "...did not make the final album track listing." or something similar

• I kind of prefer the way it now, which seems simpler, possibly more neutral, and possibly less colloquial. But I don't have a really strong opinion. If you much prefer your idea, I am willing to change it. Moisejp (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I find "...left off of..." too informal. What other ways could we say this? — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have tentatively changed this to "was not included on the album". If it happens this doesn't work for you, we could go with your first suggestion. Moisejp (talk) 08:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• That's perfect, spot on :) — sparklism ^hey! 12:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• You've got the image and the sound file on the same side of the section - maybe move the image to the left hand side?

• Done. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Release and reception

• There are eleven album reviews in the template - this style guide says there should be "no more than ten"
• The same guide says "The bulk of the information should be in prose format... The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review cannot be accurately boiled down to a simple rating..." I interpret this as meaning there should be at least one line of prose in the section for every review in the ratings template. You've got seven lines of prose there - can this be expanded to include a line from all ten (eleven) reviews?
• Some GA reviewers suggest that non-metric scores ("favourable", "neutral", etc.) should be excluded from the ratings template as they are too subjective. Personally, I don't agree with this - what are your views on this?

• I am happy to cut one of the reviews in the template. The Seattle Times would be my first choice, as it may be the least "music standard" of all of them, but it may partly depend on what we decide in the rest of this discussion. (But, then again, one reason I think I added The Seattle Times was to not have 90% of the reviews positive, which could be a reason to keep it.)

• Since the style guide explicitly states "no more than ten," and I see that logic applied widely across album articles, I think we should also stick to it here. Like you, I also like to see a balance of favourable and less-favourable reviews included where possible, so I would understand why you'd want to keep the ST review there. I'll let you decide which one is going to go, but we do need to lose one. — sparklism ^hey! 12:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Like you, I also don't particularly agree that non-metric scores are too subjective to be used—usually, it should be pretty easy to get the gist of whether a review is favorable or not, and when there is disagreement, editors can discuss this just like they discuss any other disagreement. Plus, some of the big music magazines (for example, in this case Rolling Stone and Billboard) may not use a star system, but are still important reviews to cite.
• I have read the link you provided, but I disagree that this section explicitly says the reviews in the template and in the prose must be the same—or that it makes sense that they should be. When I write the prose section of the reviews I basically try to include (at least) one point the reviewer gives that seems to be representative of why (and the degree to which) they liked—or disliked—the album as a whole. For me, that makes sense of what the prose should be. But such quotable representative "summaries" are not always present in the review. For example, Christgau gives the album A-, but there is not much to quote there to show why he likes it. Possibly, if anything, "retain their knack for righting themselves with a tuneburst" but taken out of context of the review as a whole, it is not very clear. Similarly, Heather Phares of AllMusic gives the album 4 stars out of 5, but again, there is not much that is quotable in the review that is really clear out of context while conveying that—as we assume from the 4 stars—she really liked it. But it would be crazy not to include important reviewers like Christgau and AllMusic in the template just because they don't include something really quotable. And it is not good to include possibly unnatural content in the prose just to force these reviews to match what's in the template. Rather, one should focus on making the prose have good flow, and in an overall way, be representative. But let me know what you think. As always, I am happy to come up with a compromise if you disagree. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 14:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• OK, that seems reasonable enough to me. (For the record, I explicitly said that it was my interpretation of that guideline, not what the guideline explicitly said, but it doesn't matter..) — sparklism ^hey! 12:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Personnel

• You've listed the primary personnel i.e. the musicians, but there's no mention of the other people involved (producers / engineers / designers etc.) Are these not credited in the CD liner notes?
  • I have now added to the Personnel section. Moisejp (talk) 07:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Great :) — sparklism ^hey! 08:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I've run out of time here now, but I'll take another look once you've had time to respond. Keep up the good work! — sparklism ^hey! 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Sparklism. Thanks very much for your comments and copy-edits. I will do my utmost to fit in time to respond ASAP, hopefully in the next few days. Thank you for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 07:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'll try to address your remaining comments in the next few days. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 08:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• This is shaping up really nicely now, keep up the good work :) — sparklism ^hey! 12:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry this last bit has taken me so long (busy IRL) - I think there's just the one final thing to fix now. Great stuff! — sparklism ^hey! 12:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• thanks very much, Sparklism. I removed one review from the review box. I also copy-edited a sentence that we had previously agreed on. If you aren't happy with the edit, feel free to revert. Thanks very much! Moisejp (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fantastic. I see you removed the BBC review from the ibox - sensible choice, IMO. After all that work, the article is in much better shape - I'm happy to pass this as a Good Article now :) — sparklism ^hey! 16:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Title TK. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151002142430/http://www.nyrock.com/reviews/2002/jon.asp to http://www.nyrock.com/reviews/2002/jon.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Editing suggestion (cite placement)

Several sentences have duplicate citations. For example: "The first engineer she hired—Mark Freegard, who had co-produced Last Splash[1][7]—has remarked that Deal was "totally lost" and that after seven weeks in the studio, there were no usable recordings.[7]". We see reference [7] posted twice. The reader would be better served to eliminate the middle [7] and move [1] to the end – IAW WP:CITEBUNDLE. Comments? – S. Rich (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

If we over bundle just for the sake of it, any intervening information added by a third party cuts across the info, and they don't know which cite supports which piece of information, which helps no-one. - SchroCat (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I posted the CITEBUNDLE guidance because it shows citations at the end of sentences. It does not show duplicate citations within sentences. Accordingly, the proposal is to eliminate duplicate cites in the particular sentences. 'Intervening' edits can be handled case by case. And such intervening edits are likely to provide new citations. In which cases they will likely support the new text in loco, most likely at the end of the sentences. Again, the proposal is cleanup those sentences where the same cite is seen more than once. – S. Rich (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Which does not negate the fact that over-bundling leads to problems later. There is no need for such a "clean up" if readers are confused by what information is supported by which citation. That is not "better serving" people. Please actually read what CITEBUNDLE says: it should be used when "each source applies to the entire sentence". That is obviously not the case here.

BTW, I have seen several problems with your editing. Please do not change page numbers to be in the format "111–12": they should be in the format "111–112". This is not the only problem I've noticed, but it is the most obvious. - SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)