Talk:Kid A/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I hope to deliver the review later today or tomorrow. Stay tuned! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Review

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 (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall, a very well written article. I have however made out some areas of improvement:

• I feel that per WP:CITEDENSE, at some parts of the article, for instance in the "Recording" paragraph, where you use Cavanagh quite intensly, there are more inline citations of the same source than necessary. If the sentences deal with roughly the same topic, you can simply have one citation at the end of all the statements.
• Speaking of the Cavanagh source: Why are there no page numbers here?
• Additionally, I have some problems with the KCRW interview that is used quite often as a source, since I am afraid that, it not being available anywhere as far as I can see, it fails WP:VERIFY. Same applies to the BBC interview.
• The magazines where several articles are used as sources from should be wikilinked, such as Q and Juice (is that the right one?)
• A promotional interview CD is given as a source. Again, I am unsure what to do with this in reference to WP:VERIFY. It does state that a source should not be thrown out because it is hard to access, however, in the case of a promotional CD sent to the press, this is borderline impossible to access for a regular person.

These issues with sources is really the only thing I can point to which could be improved in this article, since the writing is flawless apart from that. If you get a chance to resolve that issue, I am happy to pass this for GA. Thank you for your good work thus far! Cheers, Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Nice that you think the writing is flawless (most of it is mine), but I personally don't think the prose in this article is GA-worthy yet. Regarding the promotional CD, transcripts (and audio) for its contents are findable online: audio here, transcript here. Popcornduff (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I am quite surprised to hear that you find the prose to be lacking, considering you have worked on it yourself. I found it to be concise and enjoyably straight-forward. Concerning the promotional CD: I am afraid that while the YouTube video does make the interview accessable, it is not an official release of the interview, neither do I think can citizeninsane.eu (a fan project) be considered a reliable source... However, if the CD was produced by the record company, maybe it can be considered RS. I will ask about that on the WP:VERIFY talk page.

One thing I have forgotten earlier: Personnel needs a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

For reference: My question on Village Pump. Zwerg Nase (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Your point about verifiability is sensible and I've responded to your discussion on the Village Pump.

My standards for prose are very high. I think this article doesn't really flow properly yet - the recording section is sort of all over the place, for example. There's a single-sentence paragraph about songs they worked on that didn't make the album floating in the middle of nowhere. I wouldn't have nominated this for GA personally, but if you think it's good enough, hey, don't let me stop you. Popcornduff (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Question, just to clarify: is anyone working on this? The nominator abruptly declared retirement in November. I can try to fix it if nobody has it yet. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

@DannyMusicEditor: I am still on it. Had been hoping and waiting for more feedback on Village Pump, but that does not appear to be forthcoming. The vibe I got there was that the sources I had pointed out can be used. I would therefore be willing to accept that judgement, even though every reference that can be exchanged with one that is more accessable would be welcome. I approve of Popcornduff's edits over the past few days even though, so far, the rest of the points above have not yet been adressed. Danny, what are your thoughts on the matter of prose? Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

It's definitely not bad. I looked it over a few months ago and found few things to complain about. The only thing I found a big enough problem that needs fixed before it's a GA is the first paragraph of the Musical Style section, and I could fix that myself. Some of the rest of the article could be better, but it's not an impediment to GA in my opinion. If wants the article to go any further than GA, I might comb it a little finer, but looks mostly sufficient to me. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:40, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I haven't been working on this GA at all as I didn't nominate it and wouldn't have considered it ready. My edits to this article were made in the general spirit of improving it, not with respect to the GA nom. Honestly, I vote to cancel the GA if the nominator isn't around to actually see it through themselves. No point doing it just for the sake of it. Popcornduff (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with DannyMusicEditor. If you would tackle these issues, I'd be delighted to continue with this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Question - I do not have the Q magazine. I did find this, however. Yes, I know, it's someone's independent website. But it's an exact upload of what's in the magazine article. I did this with Badmotorfinger and the reviewer found it acceptable. Do you? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no reason to believe that this is not the actual article. If you hadn't said anything, I would have had to believe you that you actually own the magazine anyway (how could I prove the opposite?). I am more concerned with sources that are very hard to verify, which is not the case here. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Didn't seem so hard for me to find. The date in the article is incorrect. [1] dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:51, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

But now you've actually used these links, to the fan site, as sources. Is this kosher? My understanding was that the original sources themselves (ie Q magazine) could be used as a source but not a fan site hosting scans of that source. Popcornduff (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said with Badmotorfinger, I've done it before and it was acceptable. It's better than buying it and finding the actual page numbers. Without doing this, the sources would require page numbers which I don't have.

I think this is dubious. Would like to see a consensus from Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy) first. Popcornduff (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I think the "Style and influences" section still needs major work.

• Much of it simply lists artists that influenced the album, which is relevant, but not very readable or informative. Better would be to be specific about how a particular artist influenced the album (eg in a sound or idea etc).
• There are a lot of citations here. I doubt we need all of them - we should do a cull.
• Some of it reproduces information already stated in the Recording section. Popcornduff (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

What hurt does a lot of citations do? If it provides the information the section needs, then what's the problem? And the redundancy, should we list it in style or in recording? I'm fine with whatever you think. The first point I would think would be essential were it to go to beyond GA, but looks okay for a good article. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:37, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

We have lots of claims here that look like they should only need a single reference, but have several. For example, I just trimmed the sentence about Talking Heads - one source says all we need to say. Too many citations is a problem; see WP:CITEKILL. Popcornduff (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't mind if more than one source is given for one statement, even if it is not completely necessary. My bigger concern is the issue with WP:CITEDENSE that I gave above. As for the scans: I agree with Popcornduff that the scans should not be included as a source, but rather just the article itself. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Zwerg Nase, I don't understand what you mean by the above. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Which part confuses you? If it was the last sentence, Zwerg specifically means we should use the magazine article as the source, not the scans/fan site. Popcornduff (talk) 12:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I understand now - I thought 'article' meant the Wikipedia page when they really meant the magazine. Anyway, that would require page numbers which none of us seem to know. For all I know this information may have been taken from a scan to begin with. At first, they seemed fine with it, but their position has suddenly changed. So I guess we'll see what the community thinks. I have no reason to doubt the scan's authenticity myself. Update: a copy of the scan on that website shows the interview starts on page 96, but it's impossible to know if it's all on that page - judging from the size of the reproduction, I doubt that. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:14, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Also found the BBC interview, but it's on the blacklist because idiots post their own recordings on here as spam. It's hosted on MixCloud, is there somewhere I can ask for an exception? Nevermind, managed to get it whitelisted: [2] dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Found the promotional audio on YouTube. It is nothing more than implication - there is no concrete evidence they gave that they started in the sessions for Kid A. There's proof they at least existed by that time, but the way they talk about it doesn't rule out that they could have existed longer ago. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 17:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Check again. From that interview: "[I Will] was something, that we smashed out against the wall about 4 times during Kid A session." and "we went through several different versions, and we recorded [I Will] for the Kid A/Amnesiac sessions." We don't say that they started the songs in these sessions, only that they worked on them. Looks like "A Wolf at the Door" being worked on isn't in that source though - that's in at least one other interview, which we could cite if we could be bothered. Popcornduff (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I am sorry for being silent so long, the last week has been incredibly stressful. It appears to me that there is still some considerable work being done on the article. I will have time to review the article in its entirety again at the beginning of next week. Zwerg Nase (talk) 19:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Not much work has been done since I last posted here (sorry it took so long). I still see some problems I have raised above not adressed. Are Popcornduff or DannyMusicEditor able to resolve them within the next couple of days? If not, I would fail this review for now. But I see this article on a very good way towards GA, so if it fails, feel free to nominate it as soon as the last matters are taken care of. Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'd like to, but Popcornduff seems to lean towards opposing my edits whenever I offer solutions. a) If you're okay with me adding that magazine transcript, there's the solution, but I'm not paying money for one magazine page for Wikipedia. I won't do it. A more thorough consensus was requested on Village pump, but nothing materialized. b) How are we on that other MixCloud link? Is that okay? c) I know you don't like that promotional CD from Hail to the Thief, I've found a YouTube link for it, but I know those generally but not always unacceptable. What would you like on that? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a) I think referencing the article with page numbers, but without the link to illegal scans, would be absolutely fine. Regarding b) Mixcloud appears to be a legal source, so I don't mind that. Regarding c) I am torn on this still. I would prefer it if the statements had citations from less questionable, or rather more accessable, sources. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Some additional comments: Citation #21 is broken at the moment. Concerning the page numbers of the Q interview: There are scans there, so it is quite easy to see which statement is on which page. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Then there's nothing I can do about the Q article, I'm sorry. The way it is currently has the link already there - would you like me to remove it? Also, cite 21 was broken by another editor's careless edit, and I believe I asked what he was intending to do, but got no response. Will check again. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, which solutions am I opposing? Popcornduff (talk) 04:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

You seemed to lean toward opposing the link to the Q reproduction. If that remains so (and it seems Zwerg Nase agrees with you), I'm out of ideas there. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:36, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding something, there's no problem with the Q source. We can't link to the fansite hosting the scans, but we don't need to link to scans in the first place. Zwerg only said Q should be wikilinked (ie linked to the Q Wikipedia page). Popcornduff (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Then I have entirely misunderstood the situation. That has been done already. What should we do about the promotional CD? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

The CD seems to be a grey area. Meanwhile, Zwerg's concerns are understandable, and the conversation at the village pump went nowhere. I guess it will have to come down to Zwerg, as the reviewer. (My personal feeling is that it's OK - it's very very easy to verify the source, even if technically means breaking the law, but listening to an upload on YouTube isn't going to get anyone arrested.) Popcornduff (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have edited the Q source the way I would recommend it to be. As for the promo CD, I am leaning towards allowing it as well, and I believe WP:VERIFY leaves me the option to do so. However, I am still concerned by the WP:CITEDENSE issues. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, the personell section still needs a source. The booklet of the CD should do, I could check that with my copy tonight once I am back from work. Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

You're still concerned about that? I thought I went and reduced those significantly. In some places, I believe we're required to repeat that particular reference because a citation should come after every quote, correct? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Citedense is actually OK now. Personell is a problem though, since I just looked into it, and there are no liner notes in the album booklet, at least not in my copy. Can you find a reliable source for this section? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 19:34, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that looks good. I will go through the article as a whole again tonight and hopefully, I'll be able to promote it to GA then. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I made some minor tweaks and am happy to annouce that I can pass the article for GA now. Thank you to all contributors! Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)