Talk:Unhalfbricking/GA1

GA Review

Currently reviewing Cavie78 (talk) 12:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead is there to summarise the article - there's a fair bit of information in there that doesn't appear elsewhere particularly the chart and single release info. Consider adding a 'Release' section for details about the formats it was released in, details of singles, how it did in the charts (in prose form), any information about bonus tracks or alternative versions, etc. (would be a good place to explain in prose the information relating to the bonus tracks that's hidden away in the reference section)

• "is seen as a transitional album in the band's history, marking a musical direction away from American influences towards more traditional English folk songs." should be referenced in the lead not just the 'reception' section.

 Done - (dont mind me just felt like helping out) Jakisbak (talk) 01:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Background

• "and of this Ashley Hutchings said" - who is Ashley Hutchings?

 Done - clarified who he is --Rodhullandemu 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The French lyrics for the latter were created during the interval of a performance at the Middle Earth Club" - why were French lyrics created?

 Done - added quote and reference to Simon Nicol's description of this --Rodhullandemu 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• "set the tone for the future of British folk rock" - sounds POV, is there a ref?

 Doing... - I'm sure this can be found somewhere but for now I've changed it to something more specific --Rodhullandemu 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• "after a period of intense reflection about their future they decided to pursue the folk rock idea further" - again could do with a ref

 Doing... - likewise --Rodhullandemu 13:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done quotes now cited from Hutchings & Nicol should show this. --Rodhullandemu 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Title and cover

• "The title Unhalfbricking arose from a word-game played by the band while travelling to and from gigs" - think more could be said here about why the specific name was chosen.

 Done - sourced as to origin but nothing forthcoming about why it was chosen. Cannabis, perhaps. --Rodhullandemu 14:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL as the kids would say. Info you've added seems fair enough (I've heard lots of people speculate about the name before but never knew the real reason) Cavie78 (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll carry on working on it, and if I come across any further information, I'll expand this section. --Rodhullandemu 16:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Reception

• This section feels a little stubby, especially for such an important album. Do you have any contemporary reviews? Your should aim to "synthesize the general critical reception of the album, being as detailed as possible" according to album project guidlines.

 Doing... contemporary reviews tend not to be online, although have retitled to "Reception and influence" to reflect importance of the album. The fact that it's even now regarded as pivotal in its influence, although not perhaps as much as Liege & Lief, is testimony to its importance. Further sources being sought. --Rodhullandemu 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

General

• There seems to be no information about the actual recording of the album.

1969! They weren't The Beatles, so their recordings aren't so well-documented; however, if it can be found, I'll find it. --Rodhullandemu 01:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• Other than stating that his girlfriend was killed you don't mention Richard Thompson (who wrote two songs on the album) in the entire article.

 Doing... added detail about his contributions and I'll see what the man himself said about it. --Rodhullandemu 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• The whole article feels a little stubby, consider adding info about the album's influence, any tour to support the album (particularly given the death of the band's drummer before its release)

• Also think it would be good to have some song samples accompanying a discussion of the music in a bit more depth as well as some relevant illustrations (if available)

 Doing... I think "Si Tu Dois" & "Who Knows Where" would probably be representative; I'll sort this out. --Rodhullandemu 20:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done "Si Tu Dois" sample is probably better here than in its own article since here we actually discuss the adoption of the track and its French lyrics and how they came about; used "A Sailor's Life" sample rather than "Who Knows Where", because the latter really belongs in its own article because of its separate importance, and I don't want to stretch Fair Use too far. "ASL" is singled out by reviewers as a seminal track, so should be here for that reason. Rodhullandemu 22:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As this is my first GA review I'm going to put on hold and request a second opinion but my thoughts are - it's a really good start but there's a lot to do at this stage to reach GA status. Cavie78 (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hola. Personally I think it could do with a copyedit as some parts are unclear and/or confusing. For example the second sentence in the lead - I thought at first that by 'label' you meant 'record label', and then I realised it was a nickname, and then I was like "uh.." because well, it's not something you need to know straight off at the top of the article and it doesn't make sense to anyone who doesn't know the band. The "Background" section is full of stubby paragraphs; consider forking some of it off to a 'music' or 'musical style' (or whatever) section. It's also not great to have the sound clips like that in the middle of the text; see for example Californication (album) for how to include music samples without breaking up the text. You should probably mention the chart stuff again in the 'reception' section, or else include a section on the chart history (as per nearly every other album GA). Personally I'd put it on hold for the time being and allow Rodhullanemu a little bit of time to clear it up. naerii 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

  Thanks Naerii, have put on hold until concerns are addressed.Cavie78 (talk) 13:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• In my humble opinion the article has much improved and is now GA quality. naerii 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've still got some release information to add, shouldn't take long. --Rodhullandemu 15:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Ready

For a labour of love, I've learned a lot about this album that I really should have known before. However, I hope it's now ready for approval. The lead, I think now gives an overview of the album's history and importance, both of which are addressed in detail in the body. There is little about the recording sessions themselves, and nothing I think adds to the understanding. Have been unable to source any comments from Richard Thompson, despite his pivotal guitar parts, but again, I'm not sure they're necessary. Other commentators have described his input. As for a tour to promote the album, I don't think they did one, being too busy recovering from the crash and writing/finding material for the follow-up. If there are any remaining concerns, please bring them to my attention; meanwhile, I humbly propose this article for GA status. Thanks for all your input. --Rodhullandemu 00:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• Passed, good work! Cavie78 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rodhullandemu 13:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Unhalfbricking/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The review on this album was done a while ago, and doesn't seem to have been covered by the GA Sweep. While reading I noted that some statements were not explained or developed - "marked a further musical move away from American influences". Some statements are made in the lead which are not then picked up in the main body- "arguably reached its peak" and ""A Sailor's Life", is seen as pivotal in the development of English folk rock music." (the track is mention in the body, but not as pivotal in the development of English folk rock music - the song sample is captioned "the extended song in which folk and rock came together" which is unsourced). ""Who Knows Where the Time Goes?", a song covered by many other performers and now regarded as a classic" - not in the main. "the album also marked Sandy Denny's maturation as a singer and songwriter," mentioned in lead, but not explained or further mentioned in the main body.

There is an impression that the writers are aware of material on the album, and have made allusions to this material, but haven't really developed it so that the reader is given the full information. The lead teases with information, but does not satisfy with detail.

The prose is sometimes unclear - "After their previous album had seen original singer Judy Dyble replaced by Sandy Denny, the group's male vocalist Iain Matthews left during the recordings for Unhalfbricking,[4] and Denny took a more central role." Is this saying that Iain Matthews left because Judy Dyble had been replaced by Sandy Denny? Clarity needed.

It's not clear what is the focus of the section called "Music". And following it is a section called "Background" which is mainly about a car crash, and then has a statement that "Dave Swarbrick was invited to join full-time for the follow-up, Liege & Lief." The connection is not immediately apparent.

"The latter track had been a traditional English folk song collected by A. L. Lloyd..." - I think this is just a grammar error.

The article is quite bitty, with snippets of information, and single sentence paragraphs. There's an unfinished feel about it, and a lack of organisation which means it is difficult for the reader to get an easy grasp on what information is being presented.

Sources are tricky with some bands - even for fairly significant albums such as this - so it's pleasing to see that sources have been found, especially ones which can be checked online. However, some links are dead. I have found one source in the wayback machine, and it would be worth checking for others, such as this. I haven't checked all statements yet, though some - such as the statements made in the lead which are not followed up in the body - need sourcing.

The images and sound clips have free use statements - though I am not sure if File:Frompastarchives.jpg has been firmly enough linked to this article. If this is the performance of Si Tu Dois Partir on TOTP, that should be made clear. Also, the appropriate source for the image should be stated.

I think there's a good article to be made out of the available material on this album, but we are not quite there at the moment. I'll inform the significant contributor, User:Rodhullandemu, and see what can be done. SilkTork *^YES! 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Very little has changed since the [last GA assessment]. It makes no sense to go over old ground, so perhaps primarily the diffs should be addressed. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I wasn't aware that the review had been completed, since I wasn't notified. There is clearly some work to be done, which I will address perhaps when my current chronic insomnia has been overcome. Meanwhile, I see no rush to close this review one way or the other and it would be somewhat pointless to have it failed and resubmitted all over again. Rodhullandemu 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. Yes, I agree it is better to improve an article than delist it. I had intended to do some more work on this, but got distracted. Let's put a 14 day target on this to allow improvements to be made, and assess the situation again on Feb 10th. SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing the review for now, as I don't want to keep it open indefinitely, and I haven't had time to look at it closely. SilkTork *^YES! 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see there have been some nonsense edits, and ridiculous removals of images. If it's the last think I do before I die, it will be to retain this as a GA, considering the work that's gone into it. My time is thinly spread these days, but once I have finished with it, it will be perfectly justifiable as a GA- not that it wasn't already. Kindly leave it with me. Rodhullandemu 23:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)