Talk:Echo & the Bunnymen (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

What is a good article?

A good article is—

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   (b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose); and

   (c) it contains no original research.

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Comments

1. Well written: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.

Prose is crisp and readable, though information is not always put into context. The Background section seems to start with an assumption that people know what's going on. There are justifiable concerns about the lead.

I've redone the lead per Indopug's comments below. Please can you be more specific about what assumptions you've had to make when reading the Background section so I can attempt to address that. --JD554 (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a background story about de Freitas that is hinted at, but is not quite made clear. Also, when de Freitas name is mentioned it would be appropriate as this is the first section in the main body of the article to indicate who that person is in relation to the band. A reader can work it out, but the aim of a good article is that basic information is supplied at the point where a reader might need it. Further to this, it might be appropriate to reorganise and refocus the Background section as the reader may be wondering why we are being given information about the different drummers the band had in the period running up to the making of the album. Should Blair Cunningham be mentioned at all? If the reason for the Background section is to give us the band's situation at the moment they began recording, then a general overview of the group's members, the group's commercial and critical status, etc would be welcome. At the moment it's not clear why there is such a detailed focus on the drummers. SilkTork *^YES! 10:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Much of the main source used for the Background section is available online - [1] - and more information can be found there to develop that section further. This source - [2] indicates why de Freitas was important to the band (page 98 - "he was fundamental to their creative success"). As there is an indication in the lead that is notable the band attempted to record the album without him, it would be helpful to have a clear explanation of why that is recoded as significant. SilkTork *^YES! 10:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've expanded the background section to give more information on the what the whole band did rather than just concentrating on the drummers. --JD554 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

2. Factually accurate and verifiable: (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources 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; and (c) it contains no original research.

Reliable sources used throughout. Every paragraph sourced.

3. Broad in its coverage: (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

There are concerns about the background section.

See above. --JD554 (talk) 13:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.

6. Illustrated, if possible, by images: (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Starting review. SilkTork *^YES! 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

• Initial inspection.

It follows the format of other Good Articles on albums. It contains brief details of the album, its production, personnel and reception with appropriate citation. Though concise, it appears to be quite detailed with a lead section that accurately summarises the information. The topic itself doesn't require extensive writing. The prose is crisp and readable. SilkTork *^YES! 10:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

• Concerns arising.

1. Check Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Article_body to see if this is broad in coverage, and if individual songs need more attention.
2. Background section needs rewriting - see comments above.

Comment

The lead mentions little about the music and recording process of the album. The majority of the two pargraphs seems to concentrate on the release (incl. an insignificant bit about it being remastered for CD). Another suggestion, try to mirror the article itself when writing the lead--first comes the recording, then music and then reception. indopug (talk) 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reorded the lead and added more on the recording and music. --JD554 (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• I've been very slow on this and for that I do apologise. Every time I look at this article I feel it's almost a GA, but then I read through it and feel there's something not quite right, but can't quite put my finger on it, and I go off and read other GA articles for comparison and get distracted! There's been a lot of good work done on this recently which has developed the background very well. However, I feel I'd like a little more information about the three singles. I'd like clarity about Ray Manzarek's involvement - it appears as though Echo & the Bunnymen were recording "People Are Strange" with Manzarek, but I don't think that is the case. Those may be my only remaining concerns - but I'll have a serious look at the article tonight. Any other concerns I have I'll probably tidy up myself. I think we are close to passing this. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 08:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

None of those concerns should be enough to stop the article passing GA, it addresses the main aspects of the topic, the three singles are topics in themselves and so only deserve passing mention here. With respect to Ray Manzarek, the article says: Ray Manzarek, former keyboard player with The Doors, was brought in to provide keyboards on a cover version of The Doors' 1967 single "People Are Strange",[13] which was recorded for the soundtrack of the 1987 film The Lost Boys. You're meant to think they recorded "People Are Strange" with him, because that's what happened. --JD554 (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I see what you meant about the singles, there wasn't really even a passing reference. I've fixed that now. --JD554 (talk) 09:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. I'll do a little tidy up work just to clarify matters like the Manzarek involvement. I don't think this article needs much - it's just a little reshuffling of words here and there. SilkTork *^YES! 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Singles: Good. SilkTork *^YES! 17:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the GA review appears to have stalled. I'm not sure if I'm meant to be waiting for you or you're meant to be waiting for me. Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not stalled. Just going slowly. I was there on the 6th making a few minor adjustments to the article as I read through it again, and doing a couple of ticks on the review. My last thought was to consider putting on hold until a couple of minor things were done. But then I thought I might just as well do them myself, however I then wanted a closer look at other GA album articles to get a general feel for a GA standard album article so that has delayed matters while looking at those. I think the additions you have made to background have been excellent. I don't see this heading to a fail at all. I see this being passed as a GA, but I just want to look over it and tidy up a few things first. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 10:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I must try to be less impatient! Cheers, --JD554 (talk) 10:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering if you're going to revisit this GA review? You had no involvement with it for over 7 days now. --JD554 (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I intend to look at it tonight. Please accept my apologies for the delay. SilkTork *^YES! 19:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

While the edits you're making to the article are okay, they aren't substantially altering the quality of the prose or the content. What specifically is stopping this article from being promoted to GA? As far as I can see, it meets all of the WP:GA?: the prose is well-written, it's factually accurate and verifiable, it's broad in its coverage, neutral, stable and has relevant images. Don't forget this is GA not FA. I'm struggling to understand what's holding you back on this. --JD554 (talk) 19:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Clarity of meaning. Some additional information. As I said, when reading it I felt that there were things not quite right. As I'm working on it I can see what they are. Sometimes the information doesn't quite come across, either because of word order, or because there's some detail missing (and as I do the research so I'm picking up those extra details). It's honestly easier for me to just work on it and do it than it is for me to read it, do the research, try out a few ideas and then tell you that it's better to change the word order in the second sentence of the third paragraph, etc. The intention of both my attention, your work, and the GA process is the same thing (hopefully): - to improve the article so it becomes a decent readable article that succinctly and pleasantly informs people about the album. I don't feel at the moment that it's quite there (though it's close), and I would feel uncomfortable just giving it a GA status because of your impatience. I appreciate that this review has not gone as fast as you have liked, but I am currently actively engaged on the task of working through the text and making the minor improvements. As I see you are currently working on the article, and we've already had one ec, I'll let you work on it for a while. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 19:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have found some of your edits surprising: splitting connected information into separate paragraphs (breaks the flow), adding a source which doesn't appear to be reliable[3] and unnecessarily changing reference formats. But I can easily fix those. My main concern is the lack of communication, if you don't tell me specifically what you think is wrong, I can't possibly attempt to fix it. So, specifically, what isn't clear? What needs adding? What information isn't coming across? --JD554 (talk) 20:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Passed. The article was sound. There was just a couple of bits that needed slight rewording for clarity. Sorry to have held you up on this. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 22:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem, it got there in the end and that's the important thing. --JD554 (talk) 08:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)