Talk:Worlds (Porter Robinson album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 12:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to add to the peer review (which I might still do), but I figured I would just go about this instead. I'll try to be thorough and put even my minor comments here, which I imagine will be most of them. This album means a lot; getting it to TFA is a noble goal, and I hope I can help! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 12:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Averageuntitleduser, thanks for taking the review! You've already mentioned you're looking at the article from that angle, but we'd appreciate even minor MOS compliance things you notice so Skyshifter and I are as prepared as possible before co-nominating this at FAC. I think I'll let Skyshifter handle the comments, as it's their GAN, but either of you can feel free to ping me if you'd like my input. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I've got that stored in the back of my mind. Good luck you two! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written[edit]

Lead[edit]

  • Since then — this implies that, as of 2024, he still wants to prioritize these things, perhaps: "Thereafter"
  • He was inspired by themes such as fiction — can fiction really be a theme? Many common one-word themes are quite broad (e.g. love, death, freedom, power), but "fiction" feels a little too broad. "Fictional themes" could work, but perhaps you'd have a better idea?
    • In many interviews, Robinson says the album is inspired by "fiction", so I think it's important to cite. I've changed to "fictional themes"
  • by including elements from video games, anime, and movies, and nostalgia, including sounds from 1990s video games. — the "and nostalgia, including..." bit blends a lot into the eariear part. There's always the handy "as well as".
    • Done
  • Comment after the initial review : delink "depression" in the lead, or link it in the article. — this was fixed

Background and development[edit]

  • Robinson felt that the genre limited expression — I would feel better if this was qualified time-wise, perhaps: "Robinson came to believe that the genre limited his expression"
    • Done
  • Robinson stated that the style became unappealing to him because he felt "EDM is entertainment, it's not art" — you might have to paraphrase the quote or make the tenses line up, because the past tense "he felt" conflicts with the present tense quote. There's dozens of possible rewrites, here was my go: "he asserted to NME that the style became unappealing to him, citing the state of the scene: 'EDM is entertainment, it's not art'."
    • Done
  • had the first idea for — "conceived the idea for"?
    • Done
  • He decided he wanted to write music that prioritized "beauty" and "emotion" — I feel like this would flow better if you note when he decided this. "He then decided" could be a simple solution.
    • Done
  • which became one of his first concepts for Worlds — "concepts" feels abstract, perhaps "goals" or "intentions"; if you're feeling artsy, maybe even "pillars" could work.
    • Done
  • Instead of focusing on creating club-friendly music, he decided to create the music that he wanted to hear and felt needed to exist — the first "creating" feels redundant.
    • Done
  • After its completion, Robinson stated that Worlds was the favorite thing he had ever done and that it contained his favorite music. — "thing" feels a bit, well, dull? Perhaps: "After its completion, Robinson cited Worlds as his favorite project, believing it contained his favorite music."
    • Done
  • Comment after the initial review : hadn't — "had not" — this was fixed

Composition[edit]

I rewrote two sentences, feel free to revert or tweak them to your liking.

Looks good!
  • with Robinson including elements of video games, anime and movies which resembled science fiction and fantasy — it's ambiguous as to whether the elements or the fiction resemble sci-fi and fantasy. I know it's probably an overlap, but still.
    • Paraphrased
  • Robinson used General MIDI — as this is more technical, I think adding "sounds" afterwards would give a better understanding of what it entails.
    • Done
  • M83-like synth-pop — I would add quotation marks around this
    • This is already paraphrased, so I think it's fine
      • Got it, I'd agree.
  • Comment after the initial review : This was how Robinson chose the album title "Worlds". — Referring to the word, I would stick with Worlds in italics, as you did in the "Release and promotion" section.
    Done Skyshiftertalk 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Songs[edit]

Tracks 1–5[edit]

This read quite nicely, each song flows well from development tidbits to critical commentary! As well, seemingly no MOS issues. I did another round of copyediting, but nothing stood out as major enough to put down here. Of course, please revert anything you disagree with.

Tracks 6–12[edit]
  • "Lemaitre" goes to a disambiguation page instead of "Lemaitre (band)" — this was fixed
  • Robinson felt the song is where he sings the most clearly. — perhaps add, "across the album". Also, if the source allows, what does "clearly" mean? The legibility of his vocals, the transparency of the lyrics?
    • Expanded quote
  • "fantastical and defiantly cheery, — a closing quotation mark seems to be needed
    • Done
  • Robinson enjoys the track due to its — I would qualify that he said he enjoyed it; who knows, his opinion might not be the same today.
    • Done
  • of big room and an atmospheric production — "of atmospheric big room"?
    • Done
  • Buerger said the track has "the emotions of a tear-jerking blockbuster" for over three minutes, when the first beat appears. — this feels a tad clunky, or at least repetitive. Perhaps preface the quote for something like: "Noting the late introduction of beats, Buerger said the track has 'the emotions of a tear-jerking blockbuster'." Something better is probably out there, though.
    • Done

Release and promotion[edit]

  • In the first sentence, I would make it obvious that Astralwerks won the bidding war and that they are connected with Virgin EMI.
    • Rewritten
  • 17th — change the ordinal per MOS:BADDATE
    • Done
  • Worlds Remixed, a remix album of Worlds including remixes by artists and producers such as Mat Zo, Odesza, Sleepy Tom, Galimatias and San Holo. — for repetition, perhaps just: "involving artists and producers such as"
    • Done
  • Perhaps link "LED screens"
    • Done

Critical reception[edit]

  • General comment : Right, you might've seen this coming, but this section feels a bit monotonous. It's no doubt fine for a GA; you do a great job of paraphrasing ideas and stringing them together, but the reviewers' coments are only ever introduced with the words "said" or "wrote". Switch it up a little, maybe play with the sentence structures! Otherwise, what did they commend, highlight, doubt, or concern... you get the idea. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment : I probably should've said this earlier, but oh well. I agree that you do a great job stringing along the reviewers' comments, but I think it's up to you to make the connections between them clear. As of now, the reader has to fill in the gaps; it still feels rather "x said, y said." I like the changes above, but here's some more suggestions: what did reviewers agree or disagree on, what did they seem to add onto eachother? The arrangement of paragraphs by positivity works well, but topic statements within them might still be worthwhile. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the next frontier" — I would move this toward the beginning, near: "Writing for Billboard," I believe it would flow better from the Spin comment and into the Rolling Stone review.
    • "The next frontier" for Robinson is the "approach of focusing on the individual instead of the collective", so they should be connected.
      • Ah, you're right; I tweaked it, but kept this in mind! I still think it would flow better after the sweeping statements. This would also connect the two comments about the album's propensity toward or against a live setting. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Looks nice! Skyshiftertalk 00:46, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps add one final topic statement before the Spectrum Culture review, along the lines of: "Some reviewers considered the album unexciting", whatever works best.
    • Done

Legacy[edit]

I saw no issues during a copyedit, it reads very nicely. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing[edit]

Seems good.

Chart performance[edit]

Seems good.

Verifiable with no original research[edit]

Without a doubt, the sourcing looks great. For anything potentially questionable, only Robinson's words are being used. The citations are incredibly even, both for the development and analysis of the album. I believe the Vice and AXS reviews are alright, Vice is fairly prominent, as is the author, and Villa has written for so very many RSs. The other Vice articles are used sparingly and would seem difficult to replace without some refbombing. The Spectrum Culture article is more on the questionable side (no consensus on the RSN), but it has an editorial staff and decent reputation so it should be fine. Very low Earwig score of 30%, and the top results are only attributed quotes. Ideas are blended nicely and the attention to paraphrasing is very commendable!

Spot-check[edit]

I plan to check as many as possible, starting small.

Broad in its coverage[edit]

Really good on this front. Nothing feels missing, and each section is proportional to eachother as well as the sourcing. To repeat from below, the representation of sources is so very balanced. I've tried my hand at looking for some, and nothing stands out. The most detailed unused one is this Complex article/interview, however a good bit of it is "Background" and a lot of its contents are already substituted in the article; I wouldn't leave this as a suggestion. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the use of some offline sources is nice as well! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

I don't have much to say here, the article feels really balanced. The representation of sources definitely helps with this, they all seem attributed where necessary. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable[edit]

Well this is a given; no recent content disputes or edit wars. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated[edit]

Realistically, this is all quite good. All of the media enhances the article, the logomark is quite clever. Some suggestions for FAC:

  • The "Source" paramater of the album cover no longer supports the original file. I think this is fine, but did you use a different source when updating the image?
    • Yes; updated URL
  • I'm not sure how strict the reviewers will be, but perhaps flesh out the rationales of the audio samples a tad.
    • I think they're acceptable; but maybe I'll try expanding them later.
      • Indeed, they're surely good for now.
  • Perhaps add alt text for the tour images.
    • I really, really suck with ALT text... I'll sort this out during the FAC. (I've seen some cases where ALT text is just "see description", maybe it could be the case here? No idea though) Skyshiftertalk 00:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fair! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Hope you guys don't mind me butting in here again. I'm also working on my alt text chops, but I've added some for all the images. Let me know if there's anything that could be improved on! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        I like them; they address all the right things! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I figured this review would go smoother in batches, I'll look at sourcing, images, breadth, etc. as I go. In the meantime, don't mind my pickiness! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "Personnel" section could be an option. See this image on Discogs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's nice! That means some unsourced sample credits can be readded. Skyshiftertalk 10:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Skyshiftertalk 10:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that's all I've got. I should probably mention that the prose is very smooth, as you said: "flow-y". The paragraphs are easy to follow and specific quotes or examples of broader ideas are used effectively. By my very professional FAC Readiness Verdict™, this article is prepared! Once again, this review has been a pleasure, and I wish you two good luck with getting this to TFA! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Worlds_(Porter_Robinson_album)/GA1&oldid=1218139578"