Talk:Prior to the Fire/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell (talk · contribs) 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

LBG, I saw that you reviewed "Bleed Like Me", a nomination that had been waiting over four months, and I'd like to review your nominee in turn. (I have no connection to the "Bleed Like Me" article, but it's always great to see the oldest GANs finally get some quality feedback.) Unfortunately, your talk page indicates that by finally reviewing your article, I may drive you from Wikipedia! Oh, the irony! I hope, once this review is done, you either stick around or your break is short. (We need more lazy bastards like you in Wikipedia.)

Anyway, I will begin this review in the next couple of days. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 12:53, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This article is a strong candidate. It seems reasonably complete, it answers all my questions about the album, and it's admirably neutral. I have identified a few MoS issues and some places where the prose could be improved, but I don't think it needs a major restructuring or introduction of new material. It's good to see a GAN so well prepared.

Sourcing

• You rely heavily on the waytooloud source (ref #5), but it's a dead link, and doesn't seem to have been accessed since 2011. Do you know how to access an archived version of the page? (Reference #25 is also a dead link, though it's only used once.)

That one's on-again, off-again. I'll make use of an archived version regardless of whether it comes back. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• It would be great if you had a source for the last sentence of "Background", since it could be seen as a contentious statement.

The idea behind that sentence is that it's verified in the later sections about the album's release and what not. Should I perhaps put "See "Continuing dispute with RCA" for more details" or something like that? LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Further, no one source says it; every source cited for the continuing dispute section says it. Should I just take all those footnotes and place them at the end of that sentence? Would that look good? LazyBastardGuy 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't look good. If you source the statement in its details later, that's good enough. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• The "Release and reception" section is missing citations for some important statements. All of the direct quotes especially need sources (e.g. "retro hard rock's answer to Muse" by Freeman), but the reviews without direct quotes (e.g. Pitchfork's) should also be sourced, since their statements could easily be viewed as "contentious". I see that the sources are in the chart, but they should be duplicated in the body.

 Fixed LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

MoS issues

• MOS:SECTIONS: Don't put a footnote in a section heading. You can either have an introductory sentence (e.g. "The following people...") and footnote it, or just footnote the last list item.

 Fixed LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• MOS:LEAD: The lead spends too much space (around half) discussing label issues. This should be shortened somewhat, with more information added to the lead regarding other sections of the body.

 Fixed with regard to the time devoted to the label issues. What else would you recommend I add? I can't think of anything I didn't cover up there but should have. Interestingly, leaving the article for a long time instead of poring over it for hours has allowed me to return with a fresh pair of eyes so I can look at it more objectively. This review is really helpful. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure yet. I'll make a suggestion when I've re-read the entire article. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking it over, I think the lead is now fine the way it is. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• WP:OVERLINK: Don't link "everyday words understood by most readers in context" or "the names of major geographic features and locations". Terms like Canada, Los Angeles, UK, USA, New York City, resume, Europe, and Montreal should probably not be linked. Also you should only link the following terms once in the body: High on Fire, Pitchfork Media, and progressive rock.

 Fixed I didn't realize I linked so much! I find that pretty funny. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and how about the publications' names? I've linked each one at least twice, in the review table and in the prose for the review section. LazyBastardGuy 05:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, if it's once in a table and once in prose. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Prose issues

I often find it easier to make simple prose and grammar changes myself, rather than explaining them here. These are mostly rewordings for smoothness and clarity, rather than fixing actual errors, so they may be a matter of opinion. Here are some examples:

• I reworded the first few sentences of the lead. I think it flows better now.
• I changed "was largely mixed, but positive" to "was mixed, but largely positive", since I think it better conveys the sense.
• Etc.

That makes sense, nobody that I saw when looking-up reviews outright hated the album; if anything their most negative reactions were that they were bored by it. I didn't see anything like you might find for a Brokencyde album ;) LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with any of my changes, feel free to revert and discuss here. There were also some more complicated concerns that I did not feel comfortable doing myself:

• The lead says that the band "wrote about more obscure themes, such as film and television characters, for this album", but I don't think Robocop, Dragonball, and Twin Peaks count as "obscure". Would "unusual" or "nontraditional" work instead?

I suppose that would work. I used "obscure" as in this makes it a less-accessible album overall for some people, plus these are themes that are almost never usually written about in rock. So I guess not obscure in the sense that they're only known to a select cult following so much as they're obscure themes in rock. I'll change it anyway. LazyBastardGuy 19:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• The article says "the band made their first attempt at recording the album, but the recording process still did not begin for six more months". I'm not sure what that means to say they made an attempt, if the process didn't even begin for 6 months. (Also, that sentence could use to be broken up.)

 Fixed LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

• I've made a lot more minor rewordings. Again, if any are problematic, let me know.

 Fixed I did change a couple, either for typos or because I had something even better than what I had before. LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

All your recent changes are excellent. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The article just has a few open issues left. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done LazyBastardGuy 17:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

This article passes all our GA criteria. It's a great read, well sourced, and MoS-compliant. I'm happy to promote it. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Fan-tastic. I'm going on wikibreak. I'm wikiexhausted from having worked on this article, and I need some time to recharge the ol' batteries. Thanks again for taking the review! LazyBastardGuy 18:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)