![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
i think this article is slowly getting there. well cited, pretty well phrased, coherent. slaps on the back to the recent contributors all round :) -- Kaini 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not fishing for compliments, but I did a lot of work on this article a while back to re-nose the intro and add some verifiable newspaper sources as refs to the top. It still, in my opinion needs a little more attention. The external links need to be culled of irrelevant and promotional sites, and I reckon there are too many red-links for this to achieve GA status. I don't have a massive knowledge of this area so I haven't added much recently but I will add more refs as and when I can find them. Escaper2007 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is no longer lurking in Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Are there any more statements that really need references? - Zeibura ( Talk) 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that the tune with the flute playing a broken chord at the start? If so I think I have it, could put another sample in the article to illustrate that point made in Characteristics. - Zeibura ( Talk) 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
i'm having a damn hard time getting cites for the structure para i wrote; it is fact but WP:NOR and all that. all i got is production forum threads for now. blackdownsoundboy doesn't turn up much either :( -- Kaini 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
additionally, being realistic regarding unwikifying some redlinks has been on my mind. FA articles don't generally have many redlinks, and we have a whole bunch especially in the earlier history sections. perhaps unwikify zed bias, horsepower, et al for now? --00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I started a Joe Nice article in userspace here, I don't know if he's actually worth an article or not. I think I've basically found all the sources available online (and half of them are by Martin Clark).-- P4k 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
those two sample boxes justified left and right look hella clunky :( the little column of text in between is waaaay to skinny! my layout expertise extends to inserting line breaks, however. -- Kaini 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of issue 269 of Wire with Kode9's invisible jukebox? I managed to find this which says "As Kode9 observes in the fascinating Invisible Jukebox in this month's Wire, if you were subject to intense exposure to jungle in the 90s, there is no need for the double-time beats to be actually present any more; you provide them yourself." I was going to put that in as a quote, but it's not clear whether those were his exact words or not. Either way, it looks horrid as prose, so the exact quote would definitely be better! - Zeibura ( Talk) 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"the two misnamed 'Grime' compilations put together by Rephlex in 2004 (assisted by Ammunition)" (mentioned in the 03-05 section with a {{ fact}} tag) - any idea what these are called? - Zeibura ( Talk) 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We're down to five {{ fact}} templates, all in the 03-05 section. I think I've sorted the one at the end of the first para that P4k and I were discussing above with a bit of a rewording, but if anyone disagrees feel free to change it back and discuss.
As for the other 5, I've searched high and low and cannot seem to find anything to support them. The two in the penultimate paragraph (about "the forward>> sound" and grime DJs playing there in 2005) seem perfectly believable, but can't seem to find anything to reference them on the internet. Annoying seeing as the latter could easily be salvaged by finding an old lineup of those events; seeing as we've established Forward>>'s existance and importance, we could get away with a primary source here, but their website has practically nothing on it.. perhaps these are mentioned in IRL materials, which I don't have much of.
The one about the Rephlex grime compilations bringing new flavours to the scene might be a little too vague; the only articles I found about those compilations gave no hint as to how they could be considered a turning point or why they were anything special. Unfortunately removing the end statement would make that paragraph a bit useless.
As for the last paragraph, I've been teetering on removing that entirely, the first statement about the garage scene "turning its back on the sound" seems particularly worrying... but I'll leave that decision to other. I should probably confess I've only been into dubstep for about a year, so a lot of this history stuff is a learning experience for me as well. - Zeibura ( Talk) 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
you guys know about makeref? it is the handiest little tool for cranking out well-formed references. -- Kaini 23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Right now the "History" section is basically an account of the artists, club nights, releases, etc. that have gotten the genre to where it is now, but it doesn't really give a sense of how the sound of the music itself has evolved. For instance, it says that Dubstep came out of productions by El-B, Horsepower, etc., but not what those early productions sounded like. Or: my impression is that at some point there was a move away from halfstep toward a less minimal, more accessible sound. If that shift isn't just a figment of my imagination (it might be, I'm ignorant) the article should mention it. I think ideally the article should contain at least a little more stuff like the first paragraph of the "2003-2005" section.-- P4k 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
.. the "nu rave-dubstep" sound which has been coming around recently, which is no doubt something to do with grindie? Artists like Milanese, Math Head, Emalkay... anyone familiar with what I mean? - Zeibura ( Talk) 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | Dubstep is a musical offshoot of Grime. It is essentially instrumental Grime. It is Grime's dub like dub was to reggae. | ” |
The current version is a little bit better ;-P. Keep up the great work! Wickethewok 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
previously, the article talked very specifically about bass drops without really specifying what they are. i've written a section (still a bit rough at the moment) that hopefully conveys that. i'm having problems describing the sort of 'descending through an octave but bassy as hell' style bass drop used in skream and mystikz tracks though.
i thought rewinds/reloads were worth a mention too because they are so prevalent in a live context. i'll polish the section up a little in a while. -- Kaini 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
martin 'blackdown' clark has expressed dissatisfaction with the lead of the article over on dubstepforum, and upon examination i tend to agree. it does establish notability straight away, which is good, but it's a little ambiguous; it could easily be misinterpreted as stating dubstep's first ventures overground were in 2004, whereas martin was contributing articles about el-b et al to "the face" back in 2001 [4]. -- Kaini 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pondering the IoS quote again. It suggests that grime and dubstep are the same thing, which is misleading. If we do keep it, it should be moved down to the 03-05 section (I suppose it'd fit next to the thing about Grime and Grime 2), and accompanied by another referenced statement which clearly states that grime and dubstep are not the same thing. The national press is, after all, awful with music classification (cough electronica techno cough) but I guess the wider audience they feed is larger than the number of people who read people like Clark who know their stuff. - Zeibura ( Talk) 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why I was so ambivalent about this upthread, that Independent quote was really terrible. I removed two of the newspaper references because I felt like one was enough to establish notability, and they didn't really add anything other than that. If you think it's better we could also just say "by 2005-2006 the genre was attracting attention in national media such as x, y, and z."; if all we're trying to do is establish notability then we don't even really need a quote. Also the "By 2004 the genre was defined enough.." clause was still problematic in terms of OR and false authority, and the bit about Forward was somewhat misleading since it seems like Forward>> wasn't exclusively a dubstep night in 2004-05.-- P4k 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Think we're ready to nominate it yet? I can't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't meet all 6 criteria. - Zeibura ( Talk) 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, some feedback for you as I said. The bottom stuff under "Specific things for GA" is stuff that I think need to be done to pass GA. GA isn't very strict and kinda random, but I think those things all need to be looked at. As background, I have no specific knowledge of dubstep, but I know other electronicy music stuff. I also did some minor copy-editing type stuff that should be looked over to make sure I didn't screw up any facts (see diff). Anyways, my suggestions...
Overall, very nice work! The form/presentation/organization of info is well done imo, so I don't think there's anything big holding this back from GA. A true collaborative effort, very enjoyable read. If you need me to explain any of my points or want suggestions on anything in particularly, feel free to say so here. Most of the stuff is kinda nitpicky anyway. Cheers! (yo P4k! ;-P ) Wickethewok 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now has an article. This page seems to have a lot of active contributors, so I thought you'd all like to know. Chubbles 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost feeling ready to nominate this for GA now, as all Wickethewok's points have been addressed, but just want to see if anyone has any objections. - Zeibura ( Talk) 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
i think this article is slowly getting there. well cited, pretty well phrased, coherent. slaps on the back to the recent contributors all round :) -- Kaini 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm certainly not fishing for compliments, but I did a lot of work on this article a while back to re-nose the intro and add some verifiable newspaper sources as refs to the top. It still, in my opinion needs a little more attention. The external links need to be culled of irrelevant and promotional sites, and I reckon there are too many red-links for this to achieve GA status. I don't have a massive knowledge of this area so I haven't added much recently but I will add more refs as and when I can find them. Escaper2007 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is no longer lurking in Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Are there any more statements that really need references? - Zeibura ( Talk) 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Is that the tune with the flute playing a broken chord at the start? If so I think I have it, could put another sample in the article to illustrate that point made in Characteristics. - Zeibura ( Talk) 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
i'm having a damn hard time getting cites for the structure para i wrote; it is fact but WP:NOR and all that. all i got is production forum threads for now. blackdownsoundboy doesn't turn up much either :( -- Kaini 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
additionally, being realistic regarding unwikifying some redlinks has been on my mind. FA articles don't generally have many redlinks, and we have a whole bunch especially in the earlier history sections. perhaps unwikify zed bias, horsepower, et al for now? --00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
I started a Joe Nice article in userspace here, I don't know if he's actually worth an article or not. I think I've basically found all the sources available online (and half of them are by Martin Clark).-- P4k 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
those two sample boxes justified left and right look hella clunky :( the little column of text in between is waaaay to skinny! my layout expertise extends to inserting line breaks, however. -- Kaini 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have a copy of issue 269 of Wire with Kode9's invisible jukebox? I managed to find this which says "As Kode9 observes in the fascinating Invisible Jukebox in this month's Wire, if you were subject to intense exposure to jungle in the 90s, there is no need for the double-time beats to be actually present any more; you provide them yourself." I was going to put that in as a quote, but it's not clear whether those were his exact words or not. Either way, it looks horrid as prose, so the exact quote would definitely be better! - Zeibura ( Talk) 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
"the two misnamed 'Grime' compilations put together by Rephlex in 2004 (assisted by Ammunition)" (mentioned in the 03-05 section with a {{ fact}} tag) - any idea what these are called? - Zeibura ( Talk) 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
We're down to five {{ fact}} templates, all in the 03-05 section. I think I've sorted the one at the end of the first para that P4k and I were discussing above with a bit of a rewording, but if anyone disagrees feel free to change it back and discuss.
As for the other 5, I've searched high and low and cannot seem to find anything to support them. The two in the penultimate paragraph (about "the forward>> sound" and grime DJs playing there in 2005) seem perfectly believable, but can't seem to find anything to reference them on the internet. Annoying seeing as the latter could easily be salvaged by finding an old lineup of those events; seeing as we've established Forward>>'s existance and importance, we could get away with a primary source here, but their website has practically nothing on it.. perhaps these are mentioned in IRL materials, which I don't have much of.
The one about the Rephlex grime compilations bringing new flavours to the scene might be a little too vague; the only articles I found about those compilations gave no hint as to how they could be considered a turning point or why they were anything special. Unfortunately removing the end statement would make that paragraph a bit useless.
As for the last paragraph, I've been teetering on removing that entirely, the first statement about the garage scene "turning its back on the sound" seems particularly worrying... but I'll leave that decision to other. I should probably confess I've only been into dubstep for about a year, so a lot of this history stuff is a learning experience for me as well. - Zeibura ( Talk) 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
you guys know about makeref? it is the handiest little tool for cranking out well-formed references. -- Kaini 23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Right now the "History" section is basically an account of the artists, club nights, releases, etc. that have gotten the genre to where it is now, but it doesn't really give a sense of how the sound of the music itself has evolved. For instance, it says that Dubstep came out of productions by El-B, Horsepower, etc., but not what those early productions sounded like. Or: my impression is that at some point there was a move away from halfstep toward a less minimal, more accessible sound. If that shift isn't just a figment of my imagination (it might be, I'm ignorant) the article should mention it. I think ideally the article should contain at least a little more stuff like the first paragraph of the "2003-2005" section.-- P4k 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
.. the "nu rave-dubstep" sound which has been coming around recently, which is no doubt something to do with grindie? Artists like Milanese, Math Head, Emalkay... anyone familiar with what I mean? - Zeibura ( Talk) 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
“ | Dubstep is a musical offshoot of Grime. It is essentially instrumental Grime. It is Grime's dub like dub was to reggae. | ” |
The current version is a little bit better ;-P. Keep up the great work! Wickethewok 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
previously, the article talked very specifically about bass drops without really specifying what they are. i've written a section (still a bit rough at the moment) that hopefully conveys that. i'm having problems describing the sort of 'descending through an octave but bassy as hell' style bass drop used in skream and mystikz tracks though.
i thought rewinds/reloads were worth a mention too because they are so prevalent in a live context. i'll polish the section up a little in a while. -- Kaini 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
martin 'blackdown' clark has expressed dissatisfaction with the lead of the article over on dubstepforum, and upon examination i tend to agree. it does establish notability straight away, which is good, but it's a little ambiguous; it could easily be misinterpreted as stating dubstep's first ventures overground were in 2004, whereas martin was contributing articles about el-b et al to "the face" back in 2001 [4]. -- Kaini 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm pondering the IoS quote again. It suggests that grime and dubstep are the same thing, which is misleading. If we do keep it, it should be moved down to the 03-05 section (I suppose it'd fit next to the thing about Grime and Grime 2), and accompanied by another referenced statement which clearly states that grime and dubstep are not the same thing. The national press is, after all, awful with music classification (cough electronica techno cough) but I guess the wider audience they feed is larger than the number of people who read people like Clark who know their stuff. - Zeibura ( Talk) 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why I was so ambivalent about this upthread, that Independent quote was really terrible. I removed two of the newspaper references because I felt like one was enough to establish notability, and they didn't really add anything other than that. If you think it's better we could also just say "by 2005-2006 the genre was attracting attention in national media such as x, y, and z."; if all we're trying to do is establish notability then we don't even really need a quote. Also the "By 2004 the genre was defined enough.." clause was still problematic in terms of OR and false authority, and the bit about Forward was somewhat misleading since it seems like Forward>> wasn't exclusively a dubstep night in 2004-05.-- P4k 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Think we're ready to nominate it yet? I can't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't meet all 6 criteria. - Zeibura ( Talk) 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Hiya, some feedback for you as I said. The bottom stuff under "Specific things for GA" is stuff that I think need to be done to pass GA. GA isn't very strict and kinda random, but I think those things all need to be looked at. As background, I have no specific knowledge of dubstep, but I know other electronicy music stuff. I also did some minor copy-editing type stuff that should be looked over to make sure I didn't screw up any facts (see diff). Anyways, my suggestions...
Overall, very nice work! The form/presentation/organization of info is well done imo, so I don't think there's anything big holding this back from GA. A true collaborative effort, very enjoyable read. If you need me to explain any of my points or want suggestions on anything in particularly, feel free to say so here. Most of the stuff is kinda nitpicky anyway. Cheers! (yo P4k! ;-P ) Wickethewok 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Now has an article. This page seems to have a lot of active contributors, so I thought you'd all like to know. Chubbles 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm almost feeling ready to nominate this for GA now, as all Wickethewok's points have been addressed, but just want to see if anyone has any objections. - Zeibura ( Talk) 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)