Talk:Escape (Whodini album)

Fair use rationale for Image:Whodini escape.jpg

Image:Whodini escape.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done. tomasz. 11:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Escape (Whodini album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 19:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi Andrzejbanas, I'll be reviewing this article. I figure I owe you one, after I mistakenly called you a genre-warrior at The Pale Emperor (my bad). I'll be gradually reading all of the article and all available sources over the next few hours. Might take a while, but I'd hope to have something here within a few hours. The six-month wait between your nomination and me reviewing is ridiculous, by the way. :( Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

• Lead:

The second paragraph feels a little clunky. Can we rephrase it to remove the repetition of "first hip-hop album" (it's repeated twice in two sentences). How about something like:

“ The album was a critical success upon release, and was praised by NME and Robert Christgau, among others (since the Critical reception section references 7 different reviews). It was also commercially successful, being the first hip-hop album to chart within the U.S. top 40, and was also one of the first to be certified platinum by the RIAA. ”

Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Changed to your re-phrasing. Removed the parts in small though, as I imagine that is your commentary. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Production:

"After working on their first album, Whodini, the group toured Europe and made another tour with Kangol Kid and UTFO." This doesn't sound right. I'd suggest changing the first part of this sentence to "After the release of their debut album, Whodini..."—but the rest of the sentence is still a bit confusing. Looking at the source, I think Jalil is saying that they toured for 3 weeks and were then joined by Kangol Kid & UTFO "on the same European tour". so it shouldn't be "made another tour". Maybe the second part of the sentence should be: "the group embarked on a three-month European tour. Two-and-a-half weeks into this tour, they were joined by Kangol Kid and UTFO." Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The first and second paragraphs feel a bit jumbled up. The first half of the first paragraph talks about the European tour, while the rest talks about recording sessions for Escape. Then the first half of the second paragraph talks about the European tour, then some more about recording sessions. This needs rearranging for readability. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Re-arranged the first part per your suggestion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"The producer initially refused for financial reasons, but called Hutchins the following day saying that his guitarist needed money to pay a hospital bill." Hospital bill for what? Source says the guitarist had two of his fingertips ripped off (ouch). Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

• Music:

Some minor grammatical errors (spelling mistakes: "indicateds" and "rauncy"-I'm assuming that was supposed to be "raunchy"? If not, please correct). I've been bold and fixed these myself. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. How'd I miss that? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Nelson George described Escape's music as a style which "black radio embraces ... defin[ing] radio-friendly, singles-oriented hip hop versus hard-core, more rhyme-centered rap"; over time, the divide between the two became more pronounced." I don't really know what this means, and, with no access to the book, I have no idea what I could do with it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Tried to re-phrase, is this a bit better? Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• I've made notes about subsequent sections, but I'll have to continue this tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:31, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Take your time, and thank you for reviewing this! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, Andrzejbanas. Here's the final part of my review:

• Release:
  • "According to the New York Times, before Escape Whodini had a large following in Britain and Europe; however, "Five Minutes of Funk" and "Freaks Come Out at Night" were now "heard almost constantly in New York dance clubs, as well as on local urban-contemporary radio stations"." This sentence is a bit confusing, until you read the NYT source. Maybe rephrase it to something like:

“ The group had a developed a large following in Britain and Europe prior to the release of Escape, although success in the United States had initially been limited. Five Minutes of Funk and Freaks Come Out at Night became their first legitimate hits in their home country. According to the New York Times, these could be "heard almost constantly in New York dance clubs, as well as on local urban-contemporary radio stations." ”

Also, keep in mind MOS:QUOTEMARKS: If the sentence you're quoting ends with a (.), then the . goes inside the quotation mark. This is also an issue in the Critical reception section. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think I cleared up all of them now. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Critical reception:

Seems fine to me, with the exception of the quote punctuation mentioned above. A bit of overuse of the ; but that's not a problem for GA. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Track listing:

The song lengths of some of the bonus tracks appear to be wrong, according to both discogs and AllMusic. Track 9 should be 5:20, not 1:46 / track 11 should be 3:38, not 1:46 / track 13 should be 4:45, not 5:44. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Whups. Correct again. Okay, these have been changed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Charts and certifications:

No problems here. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

• Personnel:

Should be between the Track listing and Charts sections, according to MOS:ALBUM. I personally have no preference, and think every album is different so there shouldn't be any set rules about where certain sections should be. It's fine where it is, but if you'd prefer to move it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I think I like it there too. I find things like credits and song titles match well together..in my head at least. It is kind of like listening to the record or looking at its sleeve at the same time. Y'know? I think I'm okay with where it is, but it needs to be moved, I'm not that upset about that either. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a fine looking article, Andrzejbanas. Well sourced and well written, album cover has valid fair-use rationale, all other images are creative commons. Pending some of these changes above, I'd have no hesitation promoting this to good article status. Homeostasis07 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Awesome! I think I've covered everything. Thanks for taking the time to review it. Hope it is good to go now. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andrzejbanas. The article looks great. You might have noticed I made a few minor changes, but that was just for my own benefit. I believe that the article easily passes GA, and I'm happily promoting it as such. Well done, and great work. This was by far the easiest, most painless GA review I've ever done. Thank you for that. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This stuff

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)