Talk:Night Fishing (album)

Notability issues

The music group that released this album's notability is in question. Please either beef up Sakanaction so it's notability is no longer in question or add sufficient claims of notability to this article so it can stand alone if Sakanaction is deleted. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Band albums available on amazon.com [1], band profile on allmusic.com [2]. Their SAKANAQUARIUM2009 tour will start on Februar 14, 2009 [3]. Should be enough for notability. --Ilion2 (talk) 08:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The tour might, if it's received national, non-trivial, 3rd party press, i.e. press not related to the tour promoters and not a mere event listing, and if tickets are already being sold. The album on Amazon and the info on allmusic.com are a much lower standard than Wikipedia's notability standards: Even a garage band could probably do that these days, and almost certainly a local band with a few thousand bucks in their bank account could sell albums on Amazon through a publish-on-demand or novelty-press system. Come mid-February, the notability of this band will be much easier to establish. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So no reaseon to delete now just to create in a few weeks again. Commercial sold albums, allmusic-profile, national tour are more than enough for german wikipedia, so should be enough for english wikipedia. Perhaps there are more reasons (media coverage), but someone need to know Japanese for this. The author User:Torothetiger is not active since a few days. --Ilion2 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the reason I haven't sent it to AFD, I'm hoping to avoid process for process's sake. But other editors may send it to AFD and if they do I will probably recommend userfication until after the tour. On the other hand, if it looks like this article or the existance of it is being used to promote the band in advance of the tour, I will aggressively try to get it userfied. Right now I'm assuming good faith on the part of the primary author. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Possible copyright violation

Such a long quote for such a short article could be construed as a violation of copyright law. It's not clear-cut, as fair-use is open to interpretation. The best fix is to add commentary on the quoted section. The next-best fix is to greatly expand the article so the quoted section is only a small part of it. See Wikipedia:Copyrights. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 09:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry this has been sitting here for so long. This is third on my "to review" list currently. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Because it's the band's second album, you don't have to say that it was the "second and final album" to be recorded in Hokkaido: I would just say "final album" as this implies that the first was recorded there as well.

• Fixed.

• "and was their first album to be purposely conceived of as an album." I'm not entirely sure what you mean here--could you rephrase?

• How's that?

• I would say, "all released in December 2007"

• Fixed.

• Make sure the lead follows the structure of the article.

• Does this match the structure better?

• I don't think "notoriety" is the right word, as it usually has a negative connotation. I would say "fame"

• Fixed.

• Can you convince me why some of that first paragraph of "background and development" stuff is relevant, particularly the part about the first album?

• It's context to show how the band formed, and what commercial position they were in prior to releasing the album. The Sapporo concert milestone since it was a solo billed concert, at which they performed two of the album's songs. I've simplified it a little, what do you think of this version?

• I would just call that subsection "creation" as I think the current title is redundant.

• Fixed.

• Second sentence of that: replace the band name with "they"

• Fixed.

• This is picky, but at the end of that sentence, could you flip the references so they are in order?

• Like this?

• Middle of second paragraph of that: remove "including"

• Fixed.

• "The band did not want to remove feelings of fun..." The first part reads a little informally, and I don't see how this is connected to the genres mentioned later in the sentence.

• How about this?

• Please go through the article and fix the ref flipping thing, which seems to happen commonly with ref 10.

• Fixed.

• "most fought-over album" be more specific

• Fixed.

• "The label had chosen..." replace "however" with "but"

• Fixed.

• Why is the paragraph beginning with "Lyrically, Yamaguchi worked around a "night" theme" not in the next subsection?

• Is it better at the start of the next section, here?

• "Several plans for the album did not come into being." Please rephrase

• Fixed.

• In the image caption for Queen, I would say that it was partially inspired by them

• Done.

• "In December, Sakanaction..." later in that sentence, change it to: "to promote the album, where they performed at the..."

• Fixed.

• "Originally the band had planned on releasing a new studio album in March 2015, however could not due to bassist Ami Kusakari's pregnancy." Most of the stuff in this section looks good, but I don't see how this sentence is relevant.

• Reworded.

• At the top of the Critical Reception section, would you make a box using Template:Album ratings? I find it very helpful.

• Critical reviews in Japan are generally positive by nature (except Rolling Stone Japan for some reason, and for long-dead subjects); as the act of writing about it is seen as an endorsement (and if the reviewer didn't like the release, they would ignore it and not write about it). If I added a box, it would just be a list of the reviewing sources with '(favorable)' next to them a bunch of times. I could still add it if you'd like, but since there weren't any overseas reviews of the album or one by Rolling Stone Japan, I'm not sure if a table would add anything.

• Were you unable to find any mixed or negative reviews?

• Same as above. It's a cultural thing; and I can't cite publications not reviewing a release, because I have no idea if a lack of a response is an intentional snub, or just that they didn't listen to the album.

• I would say "more than double the number"

• Fixed.

• You don't have to reestablish that that's their debut album.

• Fixed.

• You repeat "additional" twice in one sentence

• Fixed.

• Sorry if I've asked you this before, but you're fluent in Japanese, right? (I'm just asking because of the references).

• I'm not a native speaker, but I used to live there and I have a degree in it! I'm somewhere between CEFR B2 and C1.

• That's all I was wondering! :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 13 (this) is dead.

• Fixed.

@Prosperosity: That's all I have! Congratulations on your upcoming marriage and I will review your other article soon. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of this edition of the article? Do you have any further thoughts for improvements?

Thanks so much! If I have the chance in May, I'll try to return the favour with some of your Veronica Mars articles. --Prosperosity (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be too many of them there then...I don't have any anymore and only one left to revamp before I take a break from getting these up to GA. But anyways, I can definitely Pass now. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Prosperosity (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): 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): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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: