Talk:Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the Seventies/GA1

GA Review

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Brandt Luke Zorn (talk · contribs) 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I made a few very minor copyedits; these edits were mostly for very minor corrections (e.g., en-dashes instead of hyphens for page ranges) or to rearrange words within a single sentence for clarity. I didn't change words, rearrange sentences, or make substantive edits. The prose, as a whole, is clear and well-composed.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   No problems here.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   As per usual, your sourcing is diligently formatted.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Scrupulously sourced. Every sentence has a clear source via footnote; for the few sentences that do not have their own footnotes, the next sentence has a footnote that clearly corresponds to both sentences. All claims in the lead are verified in the article body.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Excellent reliance on secondary sources, even for elements that could have potentially been drawn from the primary material of the book itself (for example, relying on secondary critical analysis to select examples of Christgau's characteristic one-liner reviews.)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   No textual plagiarism or copyright violation. Earwig's Copyvio Detector only turns up quotations that are appropriately cited and attributed from secondary sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   More complete than I imagined would be possible. Great work finding contemporaneous reviews.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Gives sufficient background for a general reader unfamiliar with Christgau to understand his background, method, and attitude without going overboard.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No neutrality issues. The dispersal of critical response to Christgau is measured, balanced, thorough, and representative of positive, negative, and mixed appraisals, faithfully representing the opinions of reviewers and giving appropriate weight to each.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No indication of instability, controversy, or potential for such disruption.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   There are three images used in the article, all three freely licensed.

• The book cover, File:Christgau's Record Guide (1981).jpg is uploaded on the basis that it is ineligible for copyright. The cover only contains words (printed in a common typeface) and simple geometric shapes. As such, it falls below the threshold of minimal creativity required for copyright and conforms with the guidance found at Commons:Threshold of originality#United States.
• File:Village Voice 36 Cooper Square.jpg is an image of the former office building of The Village Voice. The image shows only the building itself and does not contain any elements that would be subject to copyright, and so it conforms with the guidance at Commons:Freedom of panorama#United States. Usage of the image is appropriate as it was Christgau's primary employer and publisher for his 1970s reviews.
• The final image, File:Pop Conference 2010 - Music in the '00s panel 03.jpg, shows Christgau and a critic who has commented on the book. No reason to doubt the license of this image, and the usage is appropriate.

1. B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   See above; I considered copyright, relevance, and captions simultaneously.

2. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Great work; this easily passes the GA criteria and is virtually FA quality. —BLZ · talk 21:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Minor points (not serious enough to block GA passage):

• The paragraphs in the "Contemporary reception" and "Legacy" section run a little long, to the point that it may inhibit readability. Consider breaking those up into smaller chunks.
• I found multiple ISBNs of the book in Google Books and Worldcat. Are we sure the one listed is the first edition (or is otherwise the "right" ISBN to list in the infobox)?
• "the music industry, whose standards were being reinvented by the genre" —> clause is slightly unclear/awkward. The "industry" is not a "who", really, and it may not jump out that "the genre" means "rock criticism". The meaning is there, but it could be ironed out to make the meaning more apparent.
  • Sometimes it can refer to a thing rather than a person ([1]). But I've clarified the genre is rock. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
• Surely the author of "Anon. (2002)" is Christgau himself, right? I would consider someone to be the "author" of a Q&A if he or she is on the "A" side of the equation.
• If you intend to take this to FA (or even if you don't), archiving source links is always a good idea. From your past work, I know you're good about that and will probably do it anyway, but just putting it on the record.

Oh, one last thought: on the cover of the book seen in the infobox, "Seventies" is rendered as "'70s". Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s also formats its title this way (rather than "Eighties"). Is there a reason it should be "Seventies" rather than "'70s"? —BLZ · talk 21:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• The copyright page of the book credits it as "Seventies", as does Christgau's website, worldcat, googlebooks... I imagine the spine does as well and that this is the official title. As for the multiple isbns, the one listed in the infobox is for the paperback; 0899190251 is for hard cover. But both are the 1st edition. I opted for paperback, as it is the one listed by Christgau's website and several of the contemporary review sources. I will revisit the rest of your feedback before nominating this for featured status. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. I figured you'd given this some thought one way or the other, just wanted to double-check. I only noticed it at the last second. Lmk if you sign up for Rock's Backpages. I could also email you those articles in the meantime if you're interested; idk how long the processing time for access via Wikipedia Library takes, but I remember mine being pretty quick. —BLZ · talk 23:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

P.P.S.: If you haven't already, you should use the Wikipedia Library program to get access to Rock's Backpages. You can apply here. There are at least two sources in there that are directly relevant here. First, Dave Marsh's "The Critics' Critic II" (Rolling Stone, January 13, 1977) shows that Marsh had an earlier take on Christgau's CG, which was also largely negative. His earlier appraisal precedes the publication of the CG as a book, but it's relevant since the book is an anthologization of the CG as it appeared in magazines. Second is Jason Gross's "The Dean of Rock Critics Schools Us On Himself: Robert Christgau's Going Into the City (Dey St.)" (Rock's Backpages, June 2015), a review of Bob's 2015 memoirs. The review recounts some tasty biographical details concerning the stresses that preparing the book put on the Dean's marriage (check out the sentences that start at "And when Christgau buried himself into...") I suppose the same info could be gleaned from Going Into the City itself, but natch a secondary source is preferable. —BLZ · talk 22:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

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.