Wikipedia:Peer review/Here Come the Warm Jets/archive1
Here Come the Warm Jets[edit]
- A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2008.
This peer review discussion has been closed.
Hi! I've had several slow days in my computer lab and I've written up a lot of information for the album Here Come the Warm Jets. I'm not the best at writing even though I think the ideas are there, but I'd like to get this to be a GA possibly! How much more steps is there to take to clean it up or information to add?
Cheers, Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch comments: Seems like a pretty good article, so here are some fairly nit-picky suggestions for improvement, with an eye to GA:
- A model article is often very useful for ideas to follow on style, structure, refs, etc. I note that there is a detailed model guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Article_body and that there are 105 album GAs to choose from at Category:GA-Class Album articles and 40 more at Category:FA-Class Album articles
- In the infobox some of the reviews seem to be missing stars or numbers or ratings (Rolling Stone for example)
- Lead seems OK, but my rule of thumb is to include every header in the lead in some way. Please see WP:LEAD
- Provide context for the reader - for example in Here Come the Warm Jets was recorded in twelve days at Majestic Studios in London during September 1973 by Derek Chandler.[7][8] adding "recording engineer" before Derek Chandler makes it much clearer who he is.
- I am also not really clear on what a "treated guitar" is - obviously it sounds different, but what is the treatment?
- I think it needs to be made clearer that Eno did not sing with the musicians when they recorded their parts.
- The middle paragraph of Style seems more like it belongs in production
- Release and aftermath might be better named Release and reception or at least include a subsection on Reception
- Might want to say what journal Lester Bangs and other critics were writing for.
- I learned a word - accessments in Modern accessments of the album have been positive,... thanks!
- Refs look OK except for Ref 9, which is a just a bare link to music.hyperreal.org Internet refs need URL, title, author if known, publisher and date accessed. {{cite web}} and other cite templates may be helpful.
- I am not sure that linking to a lyrics site, which is probably copyvio, is allowed or a good idea. May want to ask at WikiProject Albums.
Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 04:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking to time to review the article! I cleaned up most of what you said. Many of the infobox reviews don't have star ratings officially so I can't really give them any. But otherwise, I cleaned up most of what I could. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi guys. Just a bit on Release and Reception vs. Release and Aftermath... Declaring my interest, from memory I chose that heading when dividing the-then article into new sections. For me, 'reception' is a term best reserved for reaction upon the initial release of an album, not the 'longer view' of current Rolling Stone Top 500 or Allmusic ratings. 'Aftermath' seemed to cover both the contemporary and the modern views for what was then a short paragraph. Now we have more on the initial critical reception I'd tend to agree with Release and Reception but suggest the modern views should then be broken out into a subsequent paragraph, possibly titled Legacy (Aftermath on its own I would only use if we talked about what Eno did next, but before the following album, if relevant). However Legacy would be even more appropriate if we could source some words on the album's influence on other artists, as well as including the modern assessments. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- those are good points but I think to reach GA status the parapgraphs and size level of each section should be roughly balenced and by splitting those we ruin the balence. It's hard to find specific influence on bands/artists on these things that are citable (other then I found that Of Montreal do covers of The Paw Paw negro blowtorch). And that after recording the album, some songs appeared on live albums, he toured a bit with his band the Winkies then had collapsed a lung on stage and went to his next album. That kind of stuff minus the of montreal trivia sounds best for a background on an article on his next solo album I think... Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Hi guys. Just a bit on Release and Reception vs. Release and Aftermath... Declaring my interest, from memory I chose that heading when dividing the-then article into new sections. For me, 'reception' is a term best reserved for reaction upon the initial release of an album, not the 'longer view' of current Rolling Stone Top 500 or Allmusic ratings. 'Aftermath' seemed to cover both the contemporary and the modern views for what was then a short paragraph. Now we have more on the initial critical reception I'd tend to agree with Release and Reception but suggest the modern views should then be broken out into a subsequent paragraph, possibly titled Legacy (Aftermath on its own I would only use if we talked about what Eno did next, but before the following album, if relevant). However Legacy would be even more appropriate if we could source some words on the album's influence on other artists, as well as including the modern assessments. WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)