Wikipedia

Talk:Blur (band)/GA1

< Talk:Blur (band)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Wizardman in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago51 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll give this a go. I remember buying "For Tomorrow" when it was in the charts, and seeing the band live a few times, most notably at V97 where Coxon threw a guitar (can't remember which one now) into the air during "Advert" and proceeded to smash the thing to pieces. Unfortunately I threw out all the copies of Q and Mojo I used to have which would have been really useful as reliable sources about now, but there you go. A couple of immediate things are there's no mention of a Blur video released c. 1993 (post Modern Life Is Rubbish but pre Parklife) that I've completely forgotten the name of, a Japanese only live album released c. 1996 (unless that was actually a bootleg), and Blur's only 1998 gig being at Glastonbury Festival (to which James said some rather unsavoury things about Michael Eavis), and quite a lot of things are cited to books, which may be a problem in fact checking. More later. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Wow, that was fast. I thought this would take months. :)
As for your concerns about missing albums and gigs, this article makes no attempt at comprehensively discussing (or even naming) every such item. That would make the article too long and too dull, and details are for sub-articles anyway. What we've tried is to give a basic overview of the band and its very interesting story for the completely uninitiated reader.
FYI, User:WesleyDodds is co-nom on this GAN.—indopug (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Normally it does - you just got lucky with a (albeit lapsed) fan of the band finishing off a couple of GA reviews and spotting this as another one to have a crack at. :-D
Regarding the missing information, you don't indeed have to mention everything and anything, but I think a mention of major commercial releases (of which the video and Japanese live album are) and the Glastonbury gig should go in the article to give it a proper comprehensive overview. You don't need more than half a sentence for each. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
None of the sources I've examined make much of (if any) fuss about Starshaped or the live album; as it stands it's needless to mention them merely for the sake of mentioning them. I tried looking up information about James' comments about Eavis, but so far all I can find is his original remark, not anything by anyone marking out what he said as notable in of itself (unlike Noel Gallagher and his infamous "catch AIDS and die" comment). WesleyDodds (talk) 10:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm concerned by apparent content disputes over the past month - such as here on 11th August which seems to have substantial changes rather than the incremental improvement I'd expect to see leading up to a GA review, and here, here and here where there's a minor dispute over whether Blur are a "British" or an "English" band. Has a definitive consensus been agreed on this now? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am extremely offended by your show of bad faith here, accusing WesleyDodds and myself of "tag-team ownership" after we each commented once. I refuse to participate in this review unless you withdraw your accusation and apologise.—indopug (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
To be precise, I have expressed concern that some editors (not named) may be tag team owning, and have asked a second opinion to alleviate my concerns. To suggest I have only formed this opinion from your comments here is misleading, as I have based them from the article's history, its talk page, and other GA reviews - I particularly note the GA review for Modern Life Is Rubbish referring to a similar issue re: Starshaped that I mentioned above, with a particularly notable comment from the reviewer - "Ok, I'm happy to leave it for now if you feel that strongly (my emphasis)." I apologise if I gave the impression I thought you were taking strong ownership of the article, and I don't doubt your actions here are for the best intentions, but I just want to check that consensus has been reached for the current state of the article, including opinions from all interested parties. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm really not sure what you mean by "consensus has been...from all interested parties" or how I am to determine that (or even who the "interested parties" are). What matters is WP:GA?, criterion number five. Is this article stable, i.e., free from edit-warring and content disputes? Yes.
  • This diff pointed out by you above is actually my revert of an edit that changed several things. In the spirit of WP:BRD, we then discussed the changes on the talk page. Several of his unsourced changes and additions remained reverted, but I agreed that splitting off the awards section into a separate article and adding some categories were for the best.
  • British/English: you've pointed to two unrelated things. One is a driveby IP who changed the long-standing status-quo; the other is to me changing a specific word because I didn't think it was best one to describe their pre-MLIR ideological shift.
  • MLIR GAN: no idea what another article's GA review has to do with this one. Anyway, Starshaped had nothing to do with MLIR hence I was wanted to exclude it.
  • "proper comprehensive overview" (your earlier comment): actually, per WP:GAN?, the article only needs to "address the main aspects of the topic", and "This requirement is significantly weaker than the 'comprehensiveness' required of featured articles".—indopug (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • But your opinion of what "the main aspects of the topic" are may be different to mine, which in turn may be different to other people! The reason I brought up the MLIR GA review is I noticed you had a very strong opinion on the inclusion of Starshaped, which resulted (at least from my perspective) in the reviewer giving up arguing - and three years later, here you are again, having exactly the same strong opinion!
Have a look through Talk:Madonna (entertainer)/GA1 and you'll notice a variety of different actions - some involve adding text, some involve deleting it, some things the reviewee didn't want to do. The requirement about "comprehensiveness" of an article means we can take shorter articles that don't have so much to say (such as Nord Stage), not that we can leave bits out of an article because a few people think they're not important and argue strongly about it. As for being free of content disputes, what are we doing now, if not disputing over content? --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
As an experienced FAC reviewer, the idea that this constitutes a "content dispute" in that it renders the article unstable is bewildering. Anyway, I will be off-wiki for a while; I've asked my co-nom to take over.—indopug (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, discussing content doesn't make an article unstable. But so far, the few comments I have made about what I would consider improvements to the article have been met by strong opposition, which I'm afraid doesn't inspire me with confidence that we're going to get a quick consensus on things out of the review. I'll carry on with things during this week, but I'll make sure I get a third party to close the review off one way or the other to avoid any personal bias I might appear to have. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
"But so far, the few comments I have made about what I would consider improvements to the article have been met by strong opposition". I won't speak for Indopug, but my replies weren't "strong opposition". I was merely stating matter-of-factly why such information you indicated was not present in the article. I continue to look for sources, so I am not ignoring you, but as it stands there's nothing to really warrant adding that supplemental material based on the secondary sources I can track down. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Having had a short wikibreak from this, here are some more comments :

Lead :

  • Shouldn't Coxon be listed as guitarist/singer - since "You're So Great" on Blur he's done a few lead vocals, notably "Coffee And TV". (O/T : I remember watching a live performance where Damon leaped into the crowd during "There's No Other Way", forcing Graham to sing lead, changing the lyrics to "Please don't kill the singer")
    • Done.
  • Double dashes on the second sentence should be commas
    • Fixed.
  • Worth mentioning the specific influence of Pavement in the second paragraph's opening sentence?
    • It wasn't just Pavement, so keeping it general.

Formation and Leisure :

  • That December Circus should read "That December, Circus"
    • Fixed.
  • "Blur released the "She's So High" single" should read "Blur released the single "She's So High""
    • Either is fine actually, but I've changed it.

Britpop years :

Reinvention after Britpop :

  • Chart position and certification for Song 2 in the US need a citation

Coxon's departure, Think Tank and hiatus: :

  • Reference 53 does not cite James working with Sophie Ellis-Bextor and Marianne Faithfull
    • Cut.
  • Reference 53 does not use the word "attitude" in relation to Coxon leaving
    • Found a new ref talking about the recording sessions. Going through the page history, the "attitude" bit seems to be one of the stragglers from a very old version of the article.
  • Reference 56 does not cite that Battery in Your Leg is the only song Albarn wrote about the band.
    • Cut.

The general concern I have about references is a lot of them, particularly the earlier years, are cited to books. A lot of it looks correct from memory, but it could do with somebody checking.

That's all I can find for the moment, so per my earlier comments, I am requesting a second opinion on this review. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

2nd Opinion

edit

Are you still looking for a 2nd opinion? If so is it just regarding the articles stability? AIRcorn (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Second 2nd opinion

edit

Taking a quick look. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:44, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:  
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:  
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:  
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:  
    C. No original research:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:  
    B. Focused:  
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:  
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  


Pass
Query
  • There are three sound files. The first two are placed in the article with little accompanying content in the article, and the first one has a caption relating to Baggy, which is unsourced, and information on which cannot be found in the article. Are the files for "There's No Other Way" and "Parklife" needed and justified? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:50, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • There is a fair amount of reverting of edits by IP accounts. It is not uncommon for high profile articles to get a lot of attention by casual users, both helpful and unhelpful. In general it is preferred to keep articles unprotected; however, if there is a problematic amount of unhelpful/vandalistic editing I will semi-protect on request. Do regular contributors feel that the unhelpful edits are manageable? SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Article is well written; however, it tends to be elliptic - relying on prior knowledge from the reader, or asking the reader to fill in the gaps in the text. In the lead, which is an area that particularly needs to be very clear for the general reader, there are a number of jargon terms: "Madchester", "shoegazing", and "lo-fi"; I think "Britpop" and "indie rock" might be OK; certainly "hip hop" and "gospel" are widely understood. I think it's a question of thinking about the widespread use of a term, and judging if it was applied to a style of music that spread internationally, and lasted a long time. The Great Escape paragraph has "opinion quickly changed" regarding the album, and then some sentences about the media preferring Oasis over Blur. It's difficult to tell if the reader is meant to assume these two are related, especially as the Blur/Oasis appears to be general opinion of the band, while the start of the paragraph is specifically about the album. I don't think this elliptic quality is a huge problem, but it would be a worth a copyedit to make things a little clearer, especially in placing various music styles for the less knowledgeable reader so they don't have to visit other articles for further information. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Neutral. I noted that "The Great Escape was released in September 1995 to rapturous reviews" was unsourced, so checked a couple of contemporary reviews. The reviews, such as Mojo, don't read as rapturous. Can this be either adjusted, or a reliable source found which gives an overview of the initial response (selecting one positive review is not in general evidence of a widespread positive response). SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Now backed by cited text. The Harris book says "The reviews of The Great Escape brimmed with ecstasy, as if the success of Country House had propelled the critics into a state of credulous excitement", and then is followed by some examples, including the NME review mentioned in the article. If the current phrasing used in the article is lacking in your opinion I'm open to suggestions on how to reword it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Citation of reliable sources". Not a criticism or complaint, but when an article relies heavily on sources that are not available on the internet, checking takes time. I have not been able to verify some facts and quotes, and at least one item - the rapturous reviews of The Great Escape - appears to be inaccurate. On a quick second opinion I couldn't pass this, but nor can I fail it. If I was doing a full review I would order the books in order to check in detail. My gut feeling is that the article is sound, but for a green badge it really needs to be checked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • "Original research" - as with the reliable sources criteria above - it can be difficult to rule out original research if the sources are not checked. The degree of influence from lo-fi, for example, is all cited to sources not available on the internet. A quick check, however, does bear it out - [1], and I think further research would support other such statements - but that time-consuming research is for a full review rather than a quick second opinion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
  • Major aspects. The bigger the topic the longer it takes to do the background reading sufficient to judge if the major aspects have been covered. To do the article justice would require getting some books on the band and the Britpop era and having a good read. SilkTork ✔Tea time 13:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps something on music style? Perhaps something on legacy and influence? Perhaps a bit more on "The Battle of Britpop", given the media coverage and that being such an iconic moment? SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
All those aspects are threaded throughout the article and touched upon in basic terms, even if they haven't been given their own subsections as of yet. When we take this to FAC, the article will understandably be more detailed and comprehensive. But I feel it currently meets the 3a requirement of the Good Article criteria. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Fail


General comments
Final comments
  • I see no obvious fails. The article looks decent enough. I couldn't give an opinion on passing it just on a quick look, but a bit of research and background reading would confirm if the material is reliable. If I was doing the review I would ask for a copyedit, and perhaps a discussion with the contributors over expanding coverage to music style and influence/impact. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
    • I had watchlisted this when I gave my second opinion, and noticed today that Wesley has responded. What is going to happen with this? Is Ritchie333 still OK with finishing the review, or would it be more helpful if someone took over? SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:00, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Blur_(band)/GA1&oldid=1140131052"