Talk:Streetcleaner/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: RoseCherry64 (talk · contribs) 21:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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

---

Good article for the most part, some things should be addressed.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

• (resolved) "on an independent label known as Swordfish" — very weird phrasing, why not "the independent label Swordfish"?
• (resolved) "is another critic favorite" — This reads a bit casual and not encyclopedic. I would use "one of the [insert wording here] track according to critics"
• (resolved) "wall of feedback that Dominick Fernow (better known as Prurient) credited as a major influence on his musical experimentation" and "In 1999, the band Isis covered it, beginning a long partnership between frontman Aaron Turner and Broadrick." — the influence of the album on other musicians and covers is off-topic for said section and should be moved into the critical reception and legacy section
• "Devastator / Mighty Trust Krusher"; "Devastator" / "Mighty Trust Krusher"
• (resolved) Listing "drum machine" in the personnel section is odd. We know the particular drum machine used on this record, Alesis HR-16, so why is the most generic term used? The CD liner notes do list "Machine — rhythm", but it should rather be a note instead of a bulleted credit since it's unorthodox.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

• (resolved) Subgenres of the Beast: A Heavy Metal Guide is a self-published (Lulu.com is as much of a book publisher as Bandcamp is a record label) Wikipedia mirror ebook (reference) and has to be removed — per WP:CIRCULAR. This source is not used as the only reference for the claim, thankfully. [Sidenote: This book is no longer available through lulu.com, preview no longer accessible through Google Books and worst of all: cited on 13 Wikipedia articles. I'm going to scrub it from other articles. Edit: Done, except for Godflesh-related articles. Please handle those!]

• "Both are extended songs that have been manipulated and altered" — AllMusic review cited do not talk about these songs?

All other sources look good to me. I could not access all sources in print magazines (only The Wire), but the online ones and liner notes accessed via Discogs scans are credible and confirm the statements.

(resolved) Citations in tracklisting seems like WP:BLUE overciting, one would assume that it is printed on the appropriate release.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers every aspect of the album well.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   All subjective opinions are attributed to critics. Nothing here to complain about.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

   Good music samples. The images, other than the cover do lack alternative text, I'm not sure if the captions are enough or if alt text is required.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Nice job with the article! Most issues are minor, and shouldn't take too long to be resolved. Pinging nominator @CelestialWeevil: RoseCherry64 (talk) 00:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, @RoseCherry64:. Your speediness is admirable. I've put in most of the improvements, but I had a couple of specific questions.

• On "Devastator / Mighty Trust Krusher" against "Devastator" / "Mighty Trust Krusher", to me it seems like it should be all in one title since most new editions have that as a single track with the name literally being the two song titles combined (here is an example of this: https://img.discogs.com/hRBbjoeQjQrAP2KBzsKxZxRze08=/fit-in/600x480/filters:strip_icc():format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-2328928-1376090799-8005.jpeg.jpg ). It's not a big deal, though; I'll happily change it if you still think it's a good idea.
• And as for the AllMusic citation on "Both are extended songs that have been manipulated and altered", this is kind of tricky. This is the relevant section from AllMusic: "As an interesting bonus, the CD version contains four tracks originally recorded for an EP but never formally released as such, including the planned title song "Tiny Tears," and "Wound," later re-recorded and remixed for other releases." What I'm citing here is "Wound" being later re-recorded and remixed, which is, though not explicitly stated, "Wounds" on the 1990 Godflesh reissue. I know it's a pretty poor citation, but this is all there is on written info on those two tracks. In my combing through of the ~200 best Godflesh sources, nothing ever talks about them, including liner notes. I can take it out if you think I should, but I think the "Wounds" and "Streetcleaner 2" songs are important to mention on the article.

Anyway, thanks again. I really appreciate the review. CelestialWeevil ^(talk) 01:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I would put it as: On some releases, tracks 6 and 7 are combined into one song listed as "Devastator" / "Mighty Trust Krusher"

It doesn't give it a new title technically. This is a minor nitpick.

Following these improvements, you pass! RoseCherry64 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2018 (UTC)