Template:Did you know nominations/Tunnel Rats (album)

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Tunnel Rats (album)[edit]

(
)
  • ... that the album Tunnel Rats by the hip-hop collective of the same name featured a more mainstream and diverse production style than previous albums?

Moved to mainspace by 3family6 (talk). Self nominated at 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC).

  • New enough (for 16 May) and long enough. Hook checks out with online citation #1. No problems with disambig links or external links. I have given this a no due to the neutrality issue detailed below. However if all issues 1-3 can be resolved satisfactorily, then this nom should get a positive review. --Storye book (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Issues: (1) QPQ. Another QPQ is needed, because you did not do a review of Jack and Ed Biddle; you did little more than discuss the clarification templates. On this occasion I've run out of time to check fully for copyvio, but at a quick glance I think that all the matched phrases found by DYK's dup detector are all safely in quotation marks, i.e. I have not yet found any plagiarism. --Storye book (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (2) Italics. To prevent confusion, please differentiate track titles from quotations by writing the track titles in italics (no inverted commas).--Storye book (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • (3) Neutrality. It worries me that this article is not neutral in that both main sections (style and lyrics, critical recep) consist of quotations which - although they relate properly to the subheading - contain praise for the artists. Yes, the style and lyrics section is about style and lyrics, but it has so much in it about critical reception that in its present condition perhaps it should be a subsection of the critical recep section. --Storye book (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Suggestion for correcting neutrality issue. I suggest that a safe way to forward, i.e. without deleting anything, would be to put the whole content of the present style and lyrics section into the critical recep section and start again with the style and lyrics section. To avoid accusation of bias or advertising, it might be safest to write it in your own calm and objective words as far as possible, or at least avoid any quotations which include emotive praise in that section. Explain the genre (yes the fans know it but a lot of us don't, and one day your article may end up being a historical record anyway). Explain the musical influences and performer influences - obvious to you and the fans, but not to the rest of us. Tell us what some of the tracks are about and maybe why the lyrics were written. You can safely quote the odd word from a lyric and maybe give a possible reason why that word was chosen. Look at why that genre was chosen, and why it's right for those lyrics. You might not want to do any of this and I'm sure you will spot evidence of my ignorance of this genre and enjoy a good laugh - fair enough - but at least these ideas will show the kind of thing you need to do to get away from advertising-type-content and achieve an article which can pass DYK. I'd also suggest a separate section with brief details of the label that recorded it, what location it was recorded in, who arranged the musical production for the recording, what type of backing was used, who created the backing and with what equipment and so on. It doesn't matter how dull and obvious this extra material looks to you and the fans - it will help the rest of us to understand and respect it. Please cite everything, the minimum being a valid citation at the end of each paragraph.--Storye book (talk) 09:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I will get on these issues. With the QPQ, I did do a full review, but I only mentioned the clarification tags, as everything else was fine. If my word that I did a full review is not enough, I will do another.
I definitely see what you mean about the stylistic section. I wrote this article during a short period in which I had already written three other articles, so my quality control wasn't the best. I should be able to rewrite it without the critical opinions. There isn't much about the recording and all of that, but I'll see what I can find.--¿3family6 contribs 14:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, User:3family6 - much appreciated. Please ping me when you are ready for another review. --Storye book (talk) 14:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Storye book: I've re-worked the stylistic section, and added a background section. I also did a fresh QPQ. In regard to the song titles, per MOS:MUSIC song titles are to be in quotation marks, to avoid confusion with album titles. Should I deviate from this guideline in this instance?--¿3family6 contribs 23:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you 3family6 for the re-write, and thank you for your patience in this. Re the issues: (1) Please give us a link for your new QPQ? (2) Yes the italics question is awkward, and I take your point. I'll leave the decision up to you and remove it from the QPQ issues. (3) Yes the content is making a lot more sense now - just a few tweaks to do. The background section is useful, and it contains no copyvio or close paraphrasing of sources, and it has no cut-and-pastes from its parent WP article (I added a main-article template to clarify). However it still needs a bit more to justify its existence in the article. I suggest that you tweak it to hint at the musical development and/or consistency through the preceding albums to the present one, e.g. the second album apparently had a "brash, aggressive sound" (is that a quote with a source?) and you can note whether that sound is more extreme than in the current album. The second album, like the present one, contained a track about attitudes towards women - so a brief note about that would help - with citations of course. You might be able to find a very brief comment and citation to show how the first album was the same or different from the latest one. If you do these tweaks to the Background section, you will protect it from accusations that it's just a filler. As for the style and lyrics section - it's really good now - well done. Summary: Please (a) give us a link for the new QPQ and (b) please tweak the background section with brief comments with citations to indicate musical development through the 3 albums. (For your information, the prose character count of the article is currently 4895 characters - well over the 1500 required for DYK). --Storye book (talk) 09:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Silly me, I planned to put in the QPQ link and forgot to when I made my comments. I will work on developing the background section, thank you for the suggestions.--¿3family6 contribs 17:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • QPQ done, thank you, 3family6. Just the few small tweaks in the background section to do now. --Storye book (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • @Storye book: I've worked on the "Background" and "Style and lyrics" sections some more to try and add more context about the evolution of the group over time. It's difficult, as there (sadly) aren't many sources available on the Tunnel Rats, despite the major role they played in Christian hip hop's development. I've tried to make do with what I've got.--¿3family6 contribs 01:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Tunnel_Rats_(album)&oldid=960450485"