This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Free of
copyright violations,
plagiarism, and
close paraphrasing: - There are a lot of quotes that bring up false positives on copyvios. But there are also some true matches which aren't in quotes:
first true concept album. Its songs grew from a project Field Music undertook for the Imperial War Museum
utilised transducers to capture the vibrations, then displayed on a graph showing the distances between peaks on different lines to pinpoint the location of enemy armament
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Thanks
epicgenius. I've made
some minor changes to try to alleviate the copyvio issues. The two flagged passages were actually in the
pre-expansion version, which may still have been written by me in the past, but is probably why I didn't catch it during the expansion. In any event, let me know if you think it's sufficient now. (Also, I actually have nominated it for GA, along with
one other Field Music album, so if you or anyone else reading this is interested in reviewing it, by all means! LOL) Thanks! —
HunterKahn02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hunter Kahn: No problem. I didn't see the GA template, but that's even better. I or someone else might review it down the road.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This is quite a long article, so it may take a while for me to review. However, I will work hard on it and the first suggestion is to add a personnel section for easily going above start class, remember there is more than composing and writing to be mentioned within the article. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Kyle Peake for taking on the review! I just added a Personnel section consistent with those in the other Field Music album GAs; sorry I initially forgot that with this one. Looking forward to your feedback on the article! —
HunterKahn17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I can see that the album was initially recorded in 2019, can you find a source to verify if it ended then or 2020? Add this within a sentence in the body, then add recording year(s here
The lead does not comply with
WP:LEAD, as it is five paragraphs long. Try thinking about what it is notable for the lead before trimming it, take the sentence: ""A Change of Heir" was inspired by Harold Gillies, a surgeon who pioneered skin grafts and later conducted one of the first gender realignment operations." for example; this is hardly notable here
I've tightened it a bit; the area you suggested was the main spot where there was fat to trim. Let me know if this works. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I have made a list of points that are further comments for the new lead, which you haven't yet responded to on this page. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"by the English rock band" → "by English
rock band" and mention the members directly afterwards, while wikilinking
David
I've added the wikilink, but are you sure mentioning the band members is necessary? I don't usually see this kind of thing in articles about albums (for example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an FA, but the lead doesn't list off John, Paul, George and Ringo as band members). It would also add length to an already fairly lengthy lead, and it would also be a little more complicated than with a normal band, because you could argue that David and Peter Brewis are the only true band members, whereas the other three are more like touring/associate members, and if we were to list all five we'd have to explain that context and add even more length to the lead. My preference would be to just keep it as is, and the fact that the band article is wikilinked means the reader can always click on it to get more information about the members anyway... —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure the information about the meaning of the album after the release sentence should not be switched to the next para instead? It just seems like the recording information belongs earlier in the lead than this to me... I am not referencing the museum information here.
I personally like it in the first paragraph because I think it's perhaps the most crucial single statement of the whole album, so it feels appropriate for the very top. Moving it to the second paragraph would also make that one very long while the first paragraph would be very short (not that that is a major consideration). However, I did move the sentence to the bottom of the first paragraph, so it segues more smoothly into the second. Is that an acceptable compromise? —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ugh, I had some rather embarrassing typos in the lead! Apologies; I think some of these I had thought I previously fixed on a copy edit, but perhaps it didn't save. I've fixed this one now. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"World War I, and instead" → "World War I. They instead" as the sentence is a bit of a run-on
Follow this in the same para with "It was followed by the singles "Money Is a Memory" and "Beyond That of Courtesy" later that year, while "Do You Read Me?" was released as the final single in 2020."
Per above, I removed the mentions of the singles; my feeling is that since they are listed in the infobox, we could omit them from the lead and help shorten it from five paragraphs to four. Thoughts? —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Making a New World features a diverse mix" → "The latter features a diverse mixture"
I changed the paragraphs a bit during my edits, so this sentence begins a new paragraph now. If we keep it that way, I think it makes sense to keep the album title in, rather than "the latter". But let me know your thoughts. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"The album received generally positive reviews and was praised for its" → "Making a New World received generally positive reviews from music critics and was praised for the"
If we are indeed keeping the album title in the prior sentence (up to you!) that means adding it here will create a bit of redundancy. So for now I've made the changes you suggest, but kept the "the album" part. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"with writers complimenting praising Field Music" → "with Field Music being complimented"
"used for the museum shows and tour dates for the album" → "used for the former's tour dates and the museum shows" since you will have already used "the album" for referencing it in the para
Remove the opening sentence, as that does not need to be written in the body of an article
I don't actually agree with this feedback; I think it should be mentioned in the body of the article and I don't see the benefit of removing it. But I've done so. —
HunterKahn21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Released through their label Memphis Industries,[3][4][5] it is" → "Released through Field Music's record label Memphis Industries,[3][4][5] Making a New World is"
"more comfortable after visiting the IWM North branch and discussing the project." → "more comfortable with the project after visiting the IWM North branch and discussing it."
"David said they imagined the lines" → "David stated that they imagined the lines"
I made this change, but I don't really see the benefit of the change; it seems to just add an additional word where one less would suffice? —
HunterKahn21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"individuals songs they played" → "individuals songs that they played"
I'm not a big fan of uses of the word "that" when the sentence would be unaffected if they are omitted. LOL But I added it. —
HunterKahn21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"at the Imperial War Museum sites in Salford on 24 January 2019 and London on 31 January 2019." → "at the IWM sites in Salford and London on 24 January and 31 January 2019, respectively."
Sure this should come after the Musical style section?
I don't think there is a specific standard or guidelines regarding this, but the current order makes the most sense to me. —
HunterKahn17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Individual stories
"the commission from IWM" → "the commission from the IWM"
"David and Peter Brewis decided against" are you sure it shouldn't be "David and Peter Brewis initially decided against"?
No I had intended for it to be this way. This is to say they didn't want the songs to be specifically and broadly about the war itself, bur rather to focus on individual stories as they did... —
HunterKahn17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"something much bigger."" → "something much bigger"."
I believe per
WP:QUOTEMARK that the period stays inside the quotation marks for full sentences (like this one), but outside of them for sentence fragments and partial quotations? —
HunterKahn17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure that it's not best to mention songs at the start of the second para to properly establish that the research was for them? --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"David Brewis said of this" → "David said of this"
I had been using the full name on the first reference of each individual section, but I suppose that is not necessary, so I removed the first name. —
HunterKahn17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"about World War I at all."" → "about World War I at all"."
Don't think Peter's quote is needed in the sentence; change to "overly happy or sad, not wanting to write songs that presented certain ideas about war and peace" or something similar
"Peter said of this: "We wrote" → "Peter claimed that him and David "wrote" to avoid repetitive wording
Changed, though I think "claimed that he and David" is grammatically correct in this case, instead of "him and David"? Let me know if I'm wrong or feel free to change it yourself if so. —
HunterKahn17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"David Brewis, the father of two young children at the time of the album's" → "David, the father of two young children at the time of Making A New World's"
[69][70][43][68] put in numerical order and maybe one or more should be after the comma instead?
Fixed the order. All four of these quotes use that exact quotation, so I think the placement is OK, but I can still change it if you think it's necessary. —
HunterKahn18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"He said of the song: "That I chose to write that story" → "He said that he chose to write the song's "story"
[6][23] should be after the quote itself instead; however, I think this should be trimmed down, and written out in the para instead of having its own once you have done the former edit.
Is this a dealbraker? I really like the inclusion of the quote here; I think his passion for the subject and his exasperation over the situation is very well expressed, in language that I couldn't use in the encyclopedic prose itself... —
HunterKahn18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not looking to point towards specific things as a "dealbreaker" of sorts, just make sure the article's copyvio score does not remain too high. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"felt some embarrassment" → "felt somewhat embarrassed"
"He also felt embarrassed" → "David also had feelings of embarrassment"
I'm not sure I agree with this suggestion. I think it says the same thing but in more words, and changing it to this will create two consecutive sentences starting with "David", which is slightly repetitive... —
HunterKahn18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
You can keep it as the original then, but to avoid not having mentioned David by name for too long, change "but he believed" → "but David believed" in the previous sentence --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
[10] should be after the quote instead and maybe trim the latter down a bit?
Moved the citation, but again I'd rather keep the block quote if possible. I think occasional block quotes where appropriate help break up the walls of text too. —
HunterKahn18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"CJ Thorpe-Tracey of The Quietus said" → "Thorpe-Tracey stated" since you have already introduced him, and said is repetitive wording
As with the David/Peter first names, I had been reintroducing full names when they are mentioned in a section for the first time. But I agree with your suggested change; the way I was doing it probably wasn't necessary. —
HunterKahn19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"he praised the album's" → "Thorpe-Tracey praised the album's"
"with a handful of reviewers comparing it" either change "a handful" to "some" or add more sources to backup the claim, plus definitely change "it" to the latter
[110] should only be cited at the end of the Berridge sentence
I thought we were supposed to used citations after every quotation, which is why I had it twice. But I've removed the one you suggested. —
HunterKahn19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
It should be included since you have just mentioned numerous artists that a different track was compared to, but are not mentioned them again here. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
[106] should be cited mid sentence instead since that is the PF ref, not 112
The number of this citation has changed (is no longer 106) due to the other changes we've made, so I'm not sure which one you are referring to here... —
HunterKahn19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"of the two songs are" → "of "Pt. 1" is" since it only mentions that part and you can write that as an abbreviation due to having mentioned the full title numerous times within the article
Yeah, how often would a critic or person write or say "the singing on that song" vs "the singing in that song"? Obviously moreso for the former. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
[nb 1] why have you used this where elsewhere, multiple refs are cited at once?
This stemmed from suggestions I had gotten on other Field Music album GA/FA reviews. Rather than put all of this content in the body of the article, it was suggested to extract it in this way. —
HunterKahn19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Kevin Dosdale on guitar, Andrew Lowther on bass guitar, and Liz Corney on keyboards and" → "Dosdale on guitar, Andrew Lowther on bass guitar, and Corney on keyboards as well as"
"The forthcoming release of Making a New World was first announced on 18 September 2019" → "The release of Making a New World for 10 January 2020 was announced on 18 September 2019"
It's fine to have information like labels repeated as long as it's not direct repetition in different sections. This is more relevant to the Release and promotion section anyway, since it deals with the release of the album. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a 10 score limit per
MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template. You do have more reviews to add to the scores but have chosen not to for some reason; add the five other most notable reviews here
"Making a New World was well-received by most critics, with an aggregated
Metacritic rating of 73/100 based upon 18 reviews, which the website characterised as "generally positive reviews".[143] The album also received an aggregated rating of 7.2/10 on
AnyDecentMusic? based upon 22 reviews.[144]" → "Making a New World was met with generally positive reviews from music critics. At
Metacritic, the album received an
average score of 75, based on 22 reviews.[143] Aggregator
AnyDecentMusic? gave it 7.2 out of 10, based on their assessment of the critical consensus.[144]"
This section is way too extensive; see the recently passed GA
Ye for an example of how long critical reception should be. However, keep positive reviews alongside the few non-positive to lead the article to remaining neutral.
I have to disagree. This section is consistent with feedback I've received in past GA and FA review processes for other Field Music albums such as
Commontime (album) and
Open Here. Rather than just a collection of review blurbs, the section is organized by specific statements and themes (i.e., "Many reviewers described Making a New World as an ambitious album...", "...described it as a particularly niche and idiosyncratic work...", "...too many ideas and narrative elements to form a cohesive album...", etc.) which are supported by {{#tag:ref}} notes as well as occasional quotes. As for interspersing positive and non-positive, I have been specifically told not to do this in the past, and to instead put them into specific sections so they won't get lost in the shuffle, which is why most of the negative comments about the article are paired together. I don't think there is much risk of coming across as non-neutral, however, as the article clearly states both here and in the lead that not all reviews were positive. —
HunterKahn20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I meant with my initial comments that you mix positive and non-positive as in putting positive first, then having non-positive after them – with mixed coming first, then negative. However, the extensiveness is now something I do not see issue with after having heard that this has been consistent for your Field Music albums, and nothing at
WP:RECEPTION writes against you; just remember not to be too repetitive with wording though. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The lists in the last para of the section should be split into an accolades sub-section.
That's a fine sub-section, but a Reviews sub-section isn't needed; just keep the Critical reception section with that information in it and Accolades as the only sub-section. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Meg Berridge of Gigwise wrote" → "Berridge wrote"
"enthralling to listen to."" → "enthralling to listen to"."
Only done the first para but will take a look at the rest after you make the initial fixes I mentioned, since this will probably have influence on what changes you will need to make; one tip would be to not reintroduce people who have already been introduced
I did make changes so that reviewers already introduced elsewhere in the article were not introduced again. But I guess we need to have further conversation about this, since we disagree about this section. I respect your opinion of course and have incorporated almost all of your edits so far, but I feel it's already fairly condensed (there is a LOT more I could have included that I left out) and I don't really feel significantly scaling it back would benefit the article. I'm hoping we can work it would, though, and that the article won't fail simply because of this... —
HunterKahn21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I did state on this very page that I would take a look at the remainder of the critical reception section after you had made the initial changes, separated into this sub-heading so it is not confusing to read; comments for improvement can be seen below. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The score box looks a lot better; however, replace Mojo with Exclaim! here, as the latter is a more notable publication.
Are you sure [nb 8] is needed since there is only three refs under it? Same for [nb 9], [nb 10], [nb 12], [nb 13], and [nb 15].
The notes were not only used in instances of three or more citations, but to provide a bit more context about the specific reviewer statements. If you really insist on my removing them and replacing them with just citations, I will, but I personally perfer it this way and don't think it harms anything. —
HunterKahn19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"poignant and delightful"." sure the punctuation shouldn't be inside the quote per
WP:QUOTEMARK?
Why is Howe's quote directly after this when you already started on his review earlier?
This quote is referring specifically to the new criticism introduced in this part of the paragraph, about some critics disliking the concept altogether. So though I've quoted other parts of Howe's review before, I'm returning to it here because he also addresses this particularly criticism. —
HunterKahn19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"reviewers felt the album" → "reviewers felt Making a New World"
Don't think the final para is needed, since that is heavily repeating a lot of what is in the earlier sections.
Only some of these bands were mentioned before, and others not at all. And most of the earlier references to some of those bands compared certain songs or elements of the album (like Byrne's vocals on "Only in a Man's World", for example) not the album as a whole like in this paragraph. —
HunterKahn19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I understand that, but the opinion of every single critic doesn't need to be listed; there's already been enough reviews written out in prose to form multiple paras and give an overview of what critics thought in the lead, which has absolutely no mention of this para – you can remove it. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Accolades
"when they were each released" → "when they were released in September and November 2019, respectively" to specify that it was not at the time of the album's release that the songs made the list
"all tracks credited as having been written by all five members of the band" → "all tracks were credited as having been written by all five members of Field Music"
Add "Credits adapted from
AllMusic" at the top of the section before both musicians and technical personnel, with the AM ref solely cited at the end of the added credits statement
I had a little trouble making the formatting work when I tried including it in both subsections. Would putting it at the top of the overall section (as I've just done) work? —
HunterKahn21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure linking to such a large list is necessary?
Oh, someone else must have added that, I didn't even realize it was there and I don't agree with its inclusion. LOL I've removed it. —
HunterKahn21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
References
Notes
"writer Caleb Campbell said the band" → "writer Caleb Campbell said Field Music"
AllMusic should have this time of capitalisation and not be italicised
I believe I've fixed the spelling and italics everywhere, but if I missed any please let me know or feel free to change it yourself. —
HunterKahn21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Alan O'Hare of The Skinny wrote:" → "O'Hare wrote:" but are you sure the quote is needed since it has already been quoted, or if keeping this shouldn't you reword it at least?
Some of the ref numbers may have changed since I listed the issues with this sub-section after your responses to issues with other sections; try to attribute any that may appear misnumbered to one likely close to them in terms of numbering that meets the criteria listed below, as that will likely be the correct ref. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Copyvio is
too high on refs 5, 8, 16; make sure to fix this, can be done by reducing the number of quotes and putting things into your own words but still having it make sense
I've made some edits to reduce this. Looking at the comparisons in Copyvio, basically all the remaining flagged text are song titles, lyrics, or direct quotations... —
HunterKahn21:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Do most refs with a p number not need URLs as I'm confused since a few do have them included like The Guardian?
The ones that only have a page number and no URL were offline sources that I used; i.e., physical magazine articles or newspaper articles I found using Lexis Nexis or Newsbank (which provides the date and page numbers). If an online version is available as well, I will include that along with the page number, but some of the ones on this article aren't available online. —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ref 3 is missing a URL and target of The Morning Sun to its page; add an access date too after fixing those issues
This is another offline source I got from Lexis and/or Newsbank. Usually they have page numbers, and when they do I always include them, but this one does not, nor did it have an online version. —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The "work" field in the cite news and cite web templates automatically italicizes, so I've changed it to the "publisher" field instead, since that doesn't have italics. —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure ref 12 is from February 2002? Also, remove wikilinks on refs to David's wiki after this one.
Ref 30 should state Peter as you have already mentioned David Brewis; same for ref 47 and use David's second mention on the latter ref as solely his forename
It's not required to mention the Brewis surname twice on the same ref(s) when it has already been established that David and Peter are related. Understand now? --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
On ref 89, you can just state David since you already said Peter Brewis; same for 98 and 134, and the second mention of Peter on the former should just be his forename
For refs 130, 131, 132 and 133, best to replace per
WP:TWITTER
I removed the first two altogether because they were just backing up something that was already cited by something else. The other two are the only citations available for their respective sentences, but they are both official Twitter accounts so I think it should be acceptable in this limited use, right? —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
What's up with a and b, respectively, after works one and two; why is that included?
I use the "harvnb" template to directly link citations to these works cited, which I find to be an excellent system overall. However, when there are two separate works cited that have the same author and the same year, the template page suggests adding the A and B to the end of the year so that they can each be linked to and not mixed up with each other. See
Template:Harvard citation no brackets#More than one work in a year. —
HunterKahn21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure multiple publishers should be included here in parts?
Kyle Peake I believe I've addressed all of the initial comments you've made, though I know you may have some follow-up remarks (and indeed it looks like you've already made some). I have to run right now, but I will try to look at the follow-ups you made later tonight or tomorrow, and am more than willing to work with you on any other improvements you think are necessary. Thank you so much for your comprehensive review; I think this is the most thorough GAN review I've ever been involved with! —
HunterKahn21:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Hunter Kahn I'm very thankful of you too for the hard work and it is good to know that you will respond to my further comments soon, also I have responded to you in multiple areas of confusion. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hunter Kahn There are comments that I clearly stated are for the new lead that you still need to respond to before I can pass this as a GA, as well as the accolades sub-section. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to
alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by
the project page and/or leave a query at
the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
This article is written in
British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as
this nomination's talk page,
the article's talk page or
Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Free of
copyright violations,
plagiarism, and
close paraphrasing: - There are a lot of quotes that bring up false positives on copyvios. But there are also some true matches which aren't in quotes:
first true concept album. Its songs grew from a project Field Music undertook for the Imperial War Museum
utilised transducers to capture the vibrations, then displayed on a graph showing the distances between peaks on different lines to pinpoint the location of enemy armament
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
Thanks
epicgenius. I've made
some minor changes to try to alleviate the copyvio issues. The two flagged passages were actually in the
pre-expansion version, which may still have been written by me in the past, but is probably why I didn't catch it during the expansion. In any event, let me know if you think it's sufficient now. (Also, I actually have nominated it for GA, along with
one other Field Music album, so if you or anyone else reading this is interested in reviewing it, by all means! LOL) Thanks! —
HunterKahn02:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Hunter Kahn: No problem. I didn't see the GA template, but that's even better. I or someone else might review it down the road.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the
Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
This is quite a long article, so it may take a while for me to review. However, I will work hard on it and the first suggestion is to add a personnel section for easily going above start class, remember there is more than composing and writing to be mentioned within the article. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks
Kyle Peake for taking on the review! I just added a Personnel section consistent with those in the other Field Music album GAs; sorry I initially forgot that with this one. Looking forward to your feedback on the article! —
HunterKahn17:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I can see that the album was initially recorded in 2019, can you find a source to verify if it ended then or 2020? Add this within a sentence in the body, then add recording year(s here
The lead does not comply with
WP:LEAD, as it is five paragraphs long. Try thinking about what it is notable for the lead before trimming it, take the sentence: ""A Change of Heir" was inspired by Harold Gillies, a surgeon who pioneered skin grafts and later conducted one of the first gender realignment operations." for example; this is hardly notable here
I've tightened it a bit; the area you suggested was the main spot where there was fat to trim. Let me know if this works. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I have made a list of points that are further comments for the new lead, which you haven't yet responded to on this page. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"by the English rock band" → "by English
rock band" and mention the members directly afterwards, while wikilinking
David
I've added the wikilink, but are you sure mentioning the band members is necessary? I don't usually see this kind of thing in articles about albums (for example, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band is an FA, but the lead doesn't list off John, Paul, George and Ringo as band members). It would also add length to an already fairly lengthy lead, and it would also be a little more complicated than with a normal band, because you could argue that David and Peter Brewis are the only true band members, whereas the other three are more like touring/associate members, and if we were to list all five we'd have to explain that context and add even more length to the lead. My preference would be to just keep it as is, and the fact that the band article is wikilinked means the reader can always click on it to get more information about the members anyway... —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure the information about the meaning of the album after the release sentence should not be switched to the next para instead? It just seems like the recording information belongs earlier in the lead than this to me... I am not referencing the museum information here.
I personally like it in the first paragraph because I think it's perhaps the most crucial single statement of the whole album, so it feels appropriate for the very top. Moving it to the second paragraph would also make that one very long while the first paragraph would be very short (not that that is a major consideration). However, I did move the sentence to the bottom of the first paragraph, so it segues more smoothly into the second. Is that an acceptable compromise? —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ugh, I had some rather embarrassing typos in the lead! Apologies; I think some of these I had thought I previously fixed on a copy edit, but perhaps it didn't save. I've fixed this one now. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"World War I, and instead" → "World War I. They instead" as the sentence is a bit of a run-on
Follow this in the same para with "It was followed by the singles "Money Is a Memory" and "Beyond That of Courtesy" later that year, while "Do You Read Me?" was released as the final single in 2020."
Per above, I removed the mentions of the singles; my feeling is that since they are listed in the infobox, we could omit them from the lead and help shorten it from five paragraphs to four. Thoughts? —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Making a New World features a diverse mix" → "The latter features a diverse mixture"
I changed the paragraphs a bit during my edits, so this sentence begins a new paragraph now. If we keep it that way, I think it makes sense to keep the album title in, rather than "the latter". But let me know your thoughts. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"The album received generally positive reviews and was praised for its" → "Making a New World received generally positive reviews from music critics and was praised for the"
If we are indeed keeping the album title in the prior sentence (up to you!) that means adding it here will create a bit of redundancy. So for now I've made the changes you suggest, but kept the "the album" part. —
HunterKahn20:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"with writers complimenting praising Field Music" → "with Field Music being complimented"
"used for the museum shows and tour dates for the album" → "used for the former's tour dates and the museum shows" since you will have already used "the album" for referencing it in the para
Remove the opening sentence, as that does not need to be written in the body of an article
I don't actually agree with this feedback; I think it should be mentioned in the body of the article and I don't see the benefit of removing it. But I've done so. —
HunterKahn21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Released through their label Memphis Industries,[3][4][5] it is" → "Released through Field Music's record label Memphis Industries,[3][4][5] Making a New World is"
"more comfortable after visiting the IWM North branch and discussing the project." → "more comfortable with the project after visiting the IWM North branch and discussing it."
"David said they imagined the lines" → "David stated that they imagined the lines"
I made this change, but I don't really see the benefit of the change; it seems to just add an additional word where one less would suffice? —
HunterKahn21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"individuals songs they played" → "individuals songs that they played"
I'm not a big fan of uses of the word "that" when the sentence would be unaffected if they are omitted. LOL But I added it. —
HunterKahn21:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"at the Imperial War Museum sites in Salford on 24 January 2019 and London on 31 January 2019." → "at the IWM sites in Salford and London on 24 January and 31 January 2019, respectively."
Sure this should come after the Musical style section?
I don't think there is a specific standard or guidelines regarding this, but the current order makes the most sense to me. —
HunterKahn17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Individual stories
"the commission from IWM" → "the commission from the IWM"
"David and Peter Brewis decided against" are you sure it shouldn't be "David and Peter Brewis initially decided against"?
No I had intended for it to be this way. This is to say they didn't want the songs to be specifically and broadly about the war itself, bur rather to focus on individual stories as they did... —
HunterKahn17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"something much bigger."" → "something much bigger"."
I believe per
WP:QUOTEMARK that the period stays inside the quotation marks for full sentences (like this one), but outside of them for sentence fragments and partial quotations? —
HunterKahn17:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure that it's not best to mention songs at the start of the second para to properly establish that the research was for them? --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"David Brewis said of this" → "David said of this"
I had been using the full name on the first reference of each individual section, but I suppose that is not necessary, so I removed the first name. —
HunterKahn17:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"about World War I at all."" → "about World War I at all"."
Don't think Peter's quote is needed in the sentence; change to "overly happy or sad, not wanting to write songs that presented certain ideas about war and peace" or something similar
"Peter said of this: "We wrote" → "Peter claimed that him and David "wrote" to avoid repetitive wording
Changed, though I think "claimed that he and David" is grammatically correct in this case, instead of "him and David"? Let me know if I'm wrong or feel free to change it yourself if so. —
HunterKahn17:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"David Brewis, the father of two young children at the time of the album's" → "David, the father of two young children at the time of Making A New World's"
[69][70][43][68] put in numerical order and maybe one or more should be after the comma instead?
Fixed the order. All four of these quotes use that exact quotation, so I think the placement is OK, but I can still change it if you think it's necessary. —
HunterKahn18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"He said of the song: "That I chose to write that story" → "He said that he chose to write the song's "story"
[6][23] should be after the quote itself instead; however, I think this should be trimmed down, and written out in the para instead of having its own once you have done the former edit.
Is this a dealbraker? I really like the inclusion of the quote here; I think his passion for the subject and his exasperation over the situation is very well expressed, in language that I couldn't use in the encyclopedic prose itself... —
HunterKahn18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Not looking to point towards specific things as a "dealbreaker" of sorts, just make sure the article's copyvio score does not remain too high. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"felt some embarrassment" → "felt somewhat embarrassed"
"He also felt embarrassed" → "David also had feelings of embarrassment"
I'm not sure I agree with this suggestion. I think it says the same thing but in more words, and changing it to this will create two consecutive sentences starting with "David", which is slightly repetitive... —
HunterKahn18:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
You can keep it as the original then, but to avoid not having mentioned David by name for too long, change "but he believed" → "but David believed" in the previous sentence --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
[10] should be after the quote instead and maybe trim the latter down a bit?
Moved the citation, but again I'd rather keep the block quote if possible. I think occasional block quotes where appropriate help break up the walls of text too. —
HunterKahn18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"CJ Thorpe-Tracey of The Quietus said" → "Thorpe-Tracey stated" since you have already introduced him, and said is repetitive wording
As with the David/Peter first names, I had been reintroducing full names when they are mentioned in a section for the first time. But I agree with your suggested change; the way I was doing it probably wasn't necessary. —
HunterKahn19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"he praised the album's" → "Thorpe-Tracey praised the album's"
"with a handful of reviewers comparing it" either change "a handful" to "some" or add more sources to backup the claim, plus definitely change "it" to the latter
[110] should only be cited at the end of the Berridge sentence
I thought we were supposed to used citations after every quotation, which is why I had it twice. But I've removed the one you suggested. —
HunterKahn19:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
It should be included since you have just mentioned numerous artists that a different track was compared to, but are not mentioned them again here. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
[106] should be cited mid sentence instead since that is the PF ref, not 112
The number of this citation has changed (is no longer 106) due to the other changes we've made, so I'm not sure which one you are referring to here... —
HunterKahn19:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"of the two songs are" → "of "Pt. 1" is" since it only mentions that part and you can write that as an abbreviation due to having mentioned the full title numerous times within the article
Yeah, how often would a critic or person write or say "the singing on that song" vs "the singing in that song"? Obviously moreso for the former. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
[nb 1] why have you used this where elsewhere, multiple refs are cited at once?
This stemmed from suggestions I had gotten on other Field Music album GA/FA reviews. Rather than put all of this content in the body of the article, it was suggested to extract it in this way. —
HunterKahn19:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Kevin Dosdale on guitar, Andrew Lowther on bass guitar, and Liz Corney on keyboards and" → "Dosdale on guitar, Andrew Lowther on bass guitar, and Corney on keyboards as well as"
"The forthcoming release of Making a New World was first announced on 18 September 2019" → "The release of Making a New World for 10 January 2020 was announced on 18 September 2019"
It's fine to have information like labels repeated as long as it's not direct repetition in different sections. This is more relevant to the Release and promotion section anyway, since it deals with the release of the album. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a 10 score limit per
MOS:ALBUM#Album ratings template. You do have more reviews to add to the scores but have chosen not to for some reason; add the five other most notable reviews here
"Making a New World was well-received by most critics, with an aggregated
Metacritic rating of 73/100 based upon 18 reviews, which the website characterised as "generally positive reviews".[143] The album also received an aggregated rating of 7.2/10 on
AnyDecentMusic? based upon 22 reviews.[144]" → "Making a New World was met with generally positive reviews from music critics. At
Metacritic, the album received an
average score of 75, based on 22 reviews.[143] Aggregator
AnyDecentMusic? gave it 7.2 out of 10, based on their assessment of the critical consensus.[144]"
This section is way too extensive; see the recently passed GA
Ye for an example of how long critical reception should be. However, keep positive reviews alongside the few non-positive to lead the article to remaining neutral.
I have to disagree. This section is consistent with feedback I've received in past GA and FA review processes for other Field Music albums such as
Commontime (album) and
Open Here. Rather than just a collection of review blurbs, the section is organized by specific statements and themes (i.e., "Many reviewers described Making a New World as an ambitious album...", "...described it as a particularly niche and idiosyncratic work...", "...too many ideas and narrative elements to form a cohesive album...", etc.) which are supported by {{#tag:ref}} notes as well as occasional quotes. As for interspersing positive and non-positive, I have been specifically told not to do this in the past, and to instead put them into specific sections so they won't get lost in the shuffle, which is why most of the negative comments about the article are paired together. I don't think there is much risk of coming across as non-neutral, however, as the article clearly states both here and in the lead that not all reviews were positive. —
HunterKahn20:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I meant with my initial comments that you mix positive and non-positive as in putting positive first, then having non-positive after them – with mixed coming first, then negative. However, the extensiveness is now something I do not see issue with after having heard that this has been consistent for your Field Music albums, and nothing at
WP:RECEPTION writes against you; just remember not to be too repetitive with wording though. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The lists in the last para of the section should be split into an accolades sub-section.
That's a fine sub-section, but a Reviews sub-section isn't needed; just keep the Critical reception section with that information in it and Accolades as the only sub-section. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
07:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Meg Berridge of Gigwise wrote" → "Berridge wrote"
"enthralling to listen to."" → "enthralling to listen to"."
Only done the first para but will take a look at the rest after you make the initial fixes I mentioned, since this will probably have influence on what changes you will need to make; one tip would be to not reintroduce people who have already been introduced
I did make changes so that reviewers already introduced elsewhere in the article were not introduced again. But I guess we need to have further conversation about this, since we disagree about this section. I respect your opinion of course and have incorporated almost all of your edits so far, but I feel it's already fairly condensed (there is a LOT more I could have included that I left out) and I don't really feel significantly scaling it back would benefit the article. I'm hoping we can work it would, though, and that the article won't fail simply because of this... —
HunterKahn21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
I did state on this very page that I would take a look at the remainder of the critical reception section after you had made the initial changes, separated into this sub-heading so it is not confusing to read; comments for improvement can be seen below. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
17:01, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The score box looks a lot better; however, replace Mojo with Exclaim! here, as the latter is a more notable publication.
Are you sure [nb 8] is needed since there is only three refs under it? Same for [nb 9], [nb 10], [nb 12], [nb 13], and [nb 15].
The notes were not only used in instances of three or more citations, but to provide a bit more context about the specific reviewer statements. If you really insist on my removing them and replacing them with just citations, I will, but I personally perfer it this way and don't think it harms anything. —
HunterKahn19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"poignant and delightful"." sure the punctuation shouldn't be inside the quote per
WP:QUOTEMARK?
Why is Howe's quote directly after this when you already started on his review earlier?
This quote is referring specifically to the new criticism introduced in this part of the paragraph, about some critics disliking the concept altogether. So though I've quoted other parts of Howe's review before, I'm returning to it here because he also addresses this particularly criticism. —
HunterKahn19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
"reviewers felt the album" → "reviewers felt Making a New World"
Don't think the final para is needed, since that is heavily repeating a lot of what is in the earlier sections.
Only some of these bands were mentioned before, and others not at all. And most of the earlier references to some of those bands compared certain songs or elements of the album (like Byrne's vocals on "Only in a Man's World", for example) not the album as a whole like in this paragraph. —
HunterKahn19:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I understand that, but the opinion of every single critic doesn't need to be listed; there's already been enough reviews written out in prose to form multiple paras and give an overview of what critics thought in the lead, which has absolutely no mention of this para – you can remove it. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
05:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Accolades
"when they were each released" → "when they were released in September and November 2019, respectively" to specify that it was not at the time of the album's release that the songs made the list
"all tracks credited as having been written by all five members of the band" → "all tracks were credited as having been written by all five members of Field Music"
Add "Credits adapted from
AllMusic" at the top of the section before both musicians and technical personnel, with the AM ref solely cited at the end of the added credits statement
I had a little trouble making the formatting work when I tried including it in both subsections. Would putting it at the top of the overall section (as I've just done) work? —
HunterKahn21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure linking to such a large list is necessary?
Oh, someone else must have added that, I didn't even realize it was there and I don't agree with its inclusion. LOL I've removed it. —
HunterKahn21:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
References
Notes
"writer Caleb Campbell said the band" → "writer Caleb Campbell said Field Music"
AllMusic should have this time of capitalisation and not be italicised
I believe I've fixed the spelling and italics everywhere, but if I missed any please let me know or feel free to change it yourself. —
HunterKahn21:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
"Alan O'Hare of The Skinny wrote:" → "O'Hare wrote:" but are you sure the quote is needed since it has already been quoted, or if keeping this shouldn't you reword it at least?
Some of the ref numbers may have changed since I listed the issues with this sub-section after your responses to issues with other sections; try to attribute any that may appear misnumbered to one likely close to them in terms of numbering that meets the criteria listed below, as that will likely be the correct ref. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
18:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Copyvio is
too high on refs 5, 8, 16; make sure to fix this, can be done by reducing the number of quotes and putting things into your own words but still having it make sense
I've made some edits to reduce this. Looking at the comparisons in Copyvio, basically all the remaining flagged text are song titles, lyrics, or direct quotations... —
HunterKahn21:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Do most refs with a p number not need URLs as I'm confused since a few do have them included like The Guardian?
The ones that only have a page number and no URL were offline sources that I used; i.e., physical magazine articles or newspaper articles I found using Lexis Nexis or Newsbank (which provides the date and page numbers). If an online version is available as well, I will include that along with the page number, but some of the ones on this article aren't available online. —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Ref 3 is missing a URL and target of The Morning Sun to its page; add an access date too after fixing those issues
This is another offline source I got from Lexis and/or Newsbank. Usually they have page numbers, and when they do I always include them, but this one does not, nor did it have an online version. —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The "work" field in the cite news and cite web templates automatically italicizes, so I've changed it to the "publisher" field instead, since that doesn't have italics. —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure ref 12 is from February 2002? Also, remove wikilinks on refs to David's wiki after this one.
Ref 30 should state Peter as you have already mentioned David Brewis; same for ref 47 and use David's second mention on the latter ref as solely his forename
It's not required to mention the Brewis surname twice on the same ref(s) when it has already been established that David and Peter are related. Understand now? --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
On ref 89, you can just state David since you already said Peter Brewis; same for 98 and 134, and the second mention of Peter on the former should just be his forename
For refs 130, 131, 132 and 133, best to replace per
WP:TWITTER
I removed the first two altogether because they were just backing up something that was already cited by something else. The other two are the only citations available for their respective sentences, but they are both official Twitter accounts so I think it should be acceptable in this limited use, right? —
HunterKahn20:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
What's up with a and b, respectively, after works one and two; why is that included?
I use the "harvnb" template to directly link citations to these works cited, which I find to be an excellent system overall. However, when there are two separate works cited that have the same author and the same year, the template page suggests adding the A and B to the end of the year so that they can each be linked to and not mixed up with each other. See
Template:Harvard citation no brackets#More than one work in a year. —
HunterKahn21:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Are you sure multiple publishers should be included here in parts?
Kyle Peake I believe I've addressed all of the initial comments you've made, though I know you may have some follow-up remarks (and indeed it looks like you've already made some). I have to run right now, but I will try to look at the follow-ups you made later tonight or tomorrow, and am more than willing to work with you on any other improvements you think are necessary. Thank you so much for your comprehensive review; I think this is the most thorough GAN review I've ever been involved with! —
HunterKahn21:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Hunter Kahn I'm very thankful of you too for the hard work and it is good to know that you will respond to my further comments soon, also I have responded to you in multiple areas of confusion. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
06:37, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Hunter Kahn There are comments that I clearly stated are for the new lead that you still need to respond to before I can pass this as a GA, as well as the accolades sub-section. --
Kyle Peake (
talk)
19:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: