Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Agharta (album)/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2016 [1].

Agharta (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1975 live album by jazz musician Miles Davis. It was a divisive record, controversial for its jazz-rock music, Davis' last recording before his retirement, and influential on a younger generation of musicians, particularly because of guitarist Pete Cosey's frenetic playing. The album was later reassessed positively by critics, who viewed it as the culmination of Davis' electric period and one of his best works. Dan56 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Prism[edit]

Prose review by Prism
For now I will just give a preliminary review and tomorrow I will hopefully explore the article better. At first read this is generally very good.
Lead
  • fiercely innovative is verging on puffery.
  • Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, Agharta, which is a mythological subterranean utopia. I suggest rephrasing this, since the word Agharta is already said in the previous sentence. Perhaps:
Sony's Japanese division suggested its title, which refers to a [[Agharta|mythological subterranean utopia]].
  • cover artwork — artwork is sufficient
Background
  • subsequently is redundant
  • The first concert began at 4:00 P.M. — It is previously mentined that it was held in the afternoon. This is trivia.
Reception and legacy
  • I believe mini-LP should be changed, as that term is usually reserved for mini-albums, as per the Wiki page that it is associated with.
I don't think that page is a very good reference. I added "replica" to make a distinction. Dan56 (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More comments to come. Prism

Support from EddieHugh[edit]

Review by EddieHugh
:I don't have much time, but I like what I've read and want to see another jazz piece get to FA. So, starting with the lead (just state your objections if you have them, as some of these are minor)...
  • "jazz community". Is there a better term than "community"?
Maybe "scene", but I've already used that in the body... both "jazz community" and "jazz scene" are often used in the literature. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "alternate cover". Despite "alternate" being a record label favourite, this really should be "alternative".
Merriam primarily defines "alternative" as another word for "alternate", so I'm not sure... Google Books turns up slightly more results for "alternate album cover", so I'm deferring to that. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Merriam link is to the first definition of alternate: "occurring or succeeding by turns". If you insist that "alternate" is better, then I won't insist on "alternative", but it's ugly at best. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing what you see; the link leads to the page "Alternative - Definition of Alternative by Merriam-Webster" and when I scrolled down to "Full Definition of alternative", the first listing was "1. : Alternate 1", which I would take to mean the words are used interchangeably. "Alternative" also means "offering or expressing a choice", which isn't accurate here; buyers in Japan vs. the US didn't have a choice in which cover they wanted to buy, generally speaking. And if we followed the releases listed at Discogs, the release history suggests the covers did "occur in turn", as the album was released and reissued in Japan, then the US, then Japan again, then the US again, and so on... which might make "alternate" more appropriate in this case. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Click on "alternate" as the first definition in the link you gave, then go down to full definition 1 and you'll find what I mentioned. It's here. As per my last – you insist, so that's fine. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was reassessed positively in the years following his retirement". The retirement was in 1975, which would be the same time as the contemporaneous reviews, so this needs to be revised.
According to the 1980 article included in the Alkyer, Enright & Koransky (2007) book, "positive critical revisionism has lately occurred" with regards to Agharta; that would be years after 1975, after the first series of reviews, which were unfavorable. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Could it be made clearer, as we have a maximum 5-year period in which we know it had occurred? "in the years following his retirement" is vague and, if taken as 1976+, would incorporate the Jazz Forum and NYT reviews listed, which were from 1976. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1976 would be the year after Davis had retired, not the years (and not an entire year after he retired, which was in fall 1975; Jazz Forum reviewed the album in February 1976 and NYT in April)... but I'll change it to "subsequent years" anyway. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "mid 1970s" should be hyphenated.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "working in the studio only sporadically and haphazardly; the 1974 releases Big Fun and Get Up with It compiled...". Could you spell this out more? e.g. if correct, that his only releases between 1972 and the Osaka concerts were mostly from old sessions.
There were other releases that compiled even older recordings (such as 1958 Miles and Jazz at the Plaza Vol. I, not to mention other live albums such as In Concert...) I don't wanna go beyond the source. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "physical pain and difficulty walking from health complications, including joint pain caused by sickle-cell anaemia...". How's 'physical pain and difficulty walking, caused by joint pain from sickle-cell anaemia...'?
The joints in the knees I would assume (see also NIH) Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry – I meant 'what do you think of that rewording'? Pain & difficulty walking count as health complications, so "health complications" jars. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "decimated ankles". Unusual use of 'decimate'. Is there a clearer word?
I've seen it used that way before (in reference to Bill Buckner's painfully arthritic knees), and it fits the definition IMO ("to severely damage or destroy a large part of (something))", as well as Davis' particular condition: his bones were more susceptible to damage because of his osteoporosis, so the accident not only broke the ankles, but left them significantly brittle (Chambers, Miles Davis: Grove Music Essentials) Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Taking that definition, 'destroyed ankles' is either unclear or too casual, while 'badly damaged ankles' is clear and not casual. How about reducing the ambiguity by using 'badly damaged ankles'? EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "painkillers, cocaine, and morphine, which combined with his alcohol and drug use". Surely the first part of the list describes "drug use": rephrase.
I specified "recreational drug use"; the first part of the list would more so be self-medication. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources back-up all of those being used for self-medication (cocaine is surprising, but I wouldn't know!), then that's ok. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a better picture of the Hall? There are several structures in the one used (or point out in the caption which one is the hall).
I added "(left center)" to the caption; all the available pictures of the old Festival Hall show more than one structure, while the good ones (including those of the inside) are of the new Festival Hall rebuilt in 2012. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later that same year". Need to be clear if it was 75 or 76.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are the release dates in the Background section because they lead in to info on the album itself? If so, it's a bit unusual, but I quite like it in this instance.
Yes. I had no idea where else to put them that would read well, and it gets mentioning Pangaea/the evening concert out the way. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition 1st para. I'm confused by this, as it doesn't match the track listing given later. The differences for disc 2 are explained, but not for disc 1.
I didn't want to be redundant by mentioning "Maiysha" twice and it seems like something readers can figure out for themselves, but I did add to the audio sample caption that "Tatu" is part of the "Prelude" track. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Composition 2nd para and elsewhere. Better to cite source at the end of any sentence that contains a quotation. Or has policy changed on this?
I didn't to avoid cite overkill; I couldn't find anything at WP:CITE or MOS:QUOTE about exceptions to repetitive citing. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but they played it faster as they grew rapport with each other and Davis live". "but they played it faster as the band's rapport grew"?
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Davis, Cosey said, had the ability to "transmit thoughts and ideas like that to his frontline guy"". I think this can be cut; doing so would remove questions over what "frontline guy" refers to.
I paraphrased it slightly; Cosey uses it in the source in reference to the soloists in Davis' groups. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "playing – just". Be consistent throughout with either endashes or emdashes.
Ok. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ran the drum machine through several different pedals", and guitars running earlier. Guitars was borderline ok, but a drum machine being run is too casual a use of words.
I replaced it with "processed". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He arranged his guitar strings in different places". What does that mean?
I added "...on the fretboard". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "36 different". 'different' is not needed.
removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason for picking out "E-flat tuning" from the 36? If so, state it; if not, cut the mention.
Hendrix happened to use it; mentioned. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the manner of the guitarist's". Too many guitarists! Hendrix or Cosey here?
I revised the sentence(s). Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Composition" seems an inadequate section heading given its content.
It's pretty broad I admit... how about "Composition and performance"? Dan56 (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "and" can be read as including or as separating, so works well for this context. EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sonny Fortune pic: caption needs a final ".", I think. (Same for the audio sample?)
No, it's not a complete sentence (MOS:IMGSYN); I revised the sample caption. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
True – thanks! EddieHugh (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pausing there... EddieHugh (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Continued...

  • Macero was known for doing lots of editing. Is there any info on what was done for this album?
Nothing specific about what he did unfortunately. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on Earth's surface". Including the definite article is more natural to me.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "great cataclysmic". 'great' is redundant.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On the back cover, a UFO was also depicted either...". 'A UFO was also depicted on the back cover, either...' could help, by putting the new topic of the para first in the sentence.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "." for the album cover caption, too.
It's a sentence fragment, not a complete sentence (MOS:IMGSYN). Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason for "/5" for some reviews but stars for others?
MusicHound and Sputnikmusic didn't use stars, while the others did. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agharta was originally panned by critics in 1975". Cut "originally", as it's unnecessary and could be read as meaning that it was panned again later.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, as mentioned above, some of the reviews mentioned in this para are from 76, not 75, so this opening needs another rephrasing. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews that were accessible were from '76, American reviews, the year it was released there... but the source cited verifies it was panned in 1975. I revised it to "was originally panned by critics" while the Lou Reed album part I revised to "...much in the same way Lou Reed's Metal Machine Music album had in 1975." Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(1975) had that same year". "(1975)" is redundant.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "Q-tips" or use a more international term.
Cotton swabs. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he stills cued". Typo somewhere.
Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reflecting on his live". Probably best to slip in another 'Davis' ' here for "his".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cut apostrophe from "mid-1970's" in boxed quotation.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • nb 1 "the side three". Superfluous article.
Removed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track listing. "Original double LP". Specify which one this is: Japanese/US ("original" implies Japanese, but it could be clearer).
The format reflects both actually, and specifying the country would beg the same question for the other listings, or at least not be consistent. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miles Davis – composition, organ, trumpet". Composition is covered in the previous section, so cut.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 94 no longer has that info (the archived form does). Is maintaining the link correct?
The archive parameter wouldn't work without the original; I checked it off as "dead". Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In refs: Bayles title has incorrect use of caps ("With", possibly "An"); Campbell em/endash again; Graham no caps for "At".
Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Campbell needs the 2 spaces removed. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The title at the page is rendered with the spaces ("Review Miles Davis - Agharta") Dan56 (talk) 21:23, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's conventional to make typographic changes to such things, as with capitalisation. We shouldn't have a spaced emdash. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories: isn't it a 1975 live album?
Corrected. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've spotted up to now. It reads well (probably too many quotations, but that's hard to dodge), so I should be able to support. EddieHugh (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EddieHugh:, I responded/made corrections. Dan56 (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Responses to points still live (I count 6 of them) are indented above. EddieHugh (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I responded and addressed the rest, @EddieHugh:. Let me know if theres anything else. Dan56 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All done apart from the spaced emdash. EddieHugh (talk) 12:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. Dan56 (talk) 12:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Mike Christie[edit]

Review by Mike Christie
Leaning support; this is a fine article.
  • "By 1973, Davis had established most of his band's line-up": I assume this means "most of the line-up that would be used for Agharta. I think it would be better to say so explicitly.
I don't think that would lead as well/as tactfully to the paragraph introducing what Agharta was, i.e. a recording of a concert from the Japanese tour; it seems redundant. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "pallete" is not a typo, I think it needs a "[sic]" inside the quote to indicate that to the reader.
No, it was my mistake; the source says "palette". Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the individual segments performed did not cohere as a whole": I think "performed" could be cut.
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the clichéd "rock phraseology" of the guitarists, whom he said lacked wit, harmony, and taste": with "whom", this means that the guitarists lacked wit, harmony and taste, but I think you mean that the phraseology lacked those things. If so, it should be "which".
No, the critic was referring to the guitarists. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AghaRTA Jazz Centrum, a small jazz club named after the album, hosting nightly performances and an annual jazz festival played by local and international acts": if the festival or the venue are likely to ever have articles of their own, they would be worth redlinking here.
I doubt it would have enough third-party coverage for an article of its own, apart from some brief passages in travel guides repeating the same information about the club. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Agharta belonged to a period in his career": shouldn't this be "belongs"?
I'm not sure; shouldn't the (past) tense been kept consistent throughout? would the meaning be changed significantly? Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a place where most other music has not explored since": looks like an incompletely edited sentence. One way to fix it would be to delete "where".
Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The movie article references the album (the period in Davis' life right after it, its music, etc.) so it's indirectly related (WP:SEEALSO); I added list of double albums because it had been deleted as a category a few years ago, and I've seen it done this way elsewhere in place of the category. Dan56 (talk) 15:56, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

-- That's everything I can see. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:36, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie:, I fixed some things, responded to others. Dan56 (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The points you haven't fixed are fine; they were suggestions more than real problems. Any comment on the two See Also links I mentioned? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I replied above; Cheadle, the film's director, discusses Agharta and Davis after having recorded it/retired, so it gives another perspective on something that's touched on in this article (Miles_Ahead_(film)#Production). Dan56 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's good enough for my support; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I'm ignorant of jazz, so I can't make any assessment of the content of the discussions, but it's well-written, seems well-researched to me, and flows smoothly. Personally I would cut the See Also link to List of double albums, since a reader who follows that link won't learn anything about Davis or this album, but that's not something worth opposing for. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you're right, so I've replaced that link with one to Black Beauty: Miles Davis at Fillmore West (another electric-period live album), where I have added more information about the "coded phrases" Davis used on Agharta, @Mike Christie:. Dan56 (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I think that's an improvement. Best of luck with the FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments[edit]

  • Support I've read the article thoroughly (sorry it took me few days), and I can comfortably support the prose. I think the article is well researched and well written, and given its legacy (as concluded in the reception section), it serves as a nice overview of this period of Davis' career.--Retrohead (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've read the first half and from what I can see so far it's well written and very informative. I just skimmed the second half and can't really comment nn that. Karl Twist (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from AJona1992
  • It would be better if you remove the "so he" and add a semicolon instead for better flow (first subsection; third paragraph). Other than that, the article is well-written, detailed and complete, the writing is superb, and well deserving of FA status. Another great read Dan, – jona ✉ 16:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've revised it. Thanks! Dan56 (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Agharta_(album)/archive1&oldid=1138454016"