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
Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since
Allmusic have changed the syntax of their
URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on
http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
I'm currently working on the article in my
sandbox. The current version of the article already has citations in the album infobox next to the release date for each single. This source is a PDF scan of an issue of ARIA listing singles that were to come out that week (in this example, "
Imitation of Life", which it says came out on April 16, 2001). However, in one of the band's biographies, Perfect Circle by Tony Fletcher, lists the release date for this single as April 30. Which source should take precedence? I imagine the ARIA chart might since it was from the time that the single came out, and I guess that means it’s much less likely that someone misremembered the proper date. But maybe the biography is referring to the US release date? Thoughts?
Elephantranges (
talk)
01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit: *precedence I should prob learn how to spell
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.
Still going, a few minor copyedits occured here and there. Article is mainly good, it does cover the main aspects and but requires some copyediting and changes, see below.
Chchcheckit (
talk)
15:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
NME review is from 2001 and not 2005, as it has been archived
here in June 2001. I suggest tweaking the review to mix with the other contemporaneous reviews
I've inserted a use mdy dates template for consistency of date format per
WP:DATESPROJ. Text and most references are mdy but some references were not
Per
WP:PAGENUM it is preferrable to use page numbers when citing books where possible.
I wanted to see if it would be preferred to have chapters or page numbers for this article specifically - if it's changed so that each page number is cited individually, that would add a lot of clutter to the references list.
Elephantranges (
talk)
21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Promotion section is not mentioned in the lead, should be added. (nominator has fixed this)
"Multiple reviewers have compared the album to All That You Can't Leave Behind (2000) by U2, noting it as a "return to form" and a "conscious return to their classic sound." (ignore this)
Sourcing and spot checks
Earwig checks out, all quotes are cited/credited properly. GENERALLY: MOST SOURCES ARE FINE.
"The song [Imitation of Life -chch] was supported by a Garth Jennings-directed video consisting of a 20-second loop of film capturing an elaborate pool party, played forwards and backwards and zoomed in and out; the video was filmed on February 28 in Calabasas, California." Relies on singluar Facebook source, which is generally considered an unreliable source per
WP:RSPFB. Are there any reliable sources discussing the "Imitation of Life" video/supporting the content you can add? I suggest looking at the "
Imitation of Life" page for this, and/or Black 2004 chap 19 (nominator has fixed this)
"In the US, the album reached number six, the band's lowest peak since Green (1988)".: Original research relying on Billboard chart.(
WP:NOR). I suggest using Buckley 2002 and Fletcher 2013 to illustrate the differences in commercial performance of Reveal between the United States and the rest of the world; perhaps this can also be mentioned in the lead? (nominator has fixed OR)
"Generally regarded as a more optimistic and upbeat album compared to its predecessor, Reveal has also been noted as melancholic, combining a "lush" and upbeat sound with more somber elements and a darker undercurrent." Potentially
MOS:WEASEL, as it only cites one source. Are there any other sources that support the statement? Would it be better to explain/expand upon the tone of the lyrics
So would it also be better to just say "Some publications, including X and Y, described Reveal as more optimistic and upbeat blah blah blah…"? Or some variation of that.
Elephantranges (
talk)
22:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
note the text amendment: together the BBC and Stereogum references should suffice that point.
I think the formatting as it stands presently is fine, but the content needs changing for accuracy. Stereogum doesn't say there's a "contrast" but in terms of the being a mood "melancholy", it and Popmatters (2021) mention it, lyrically and/or visually. or something. the "darker undercurrent" (stereogum based again) is not musical, its thematical; which is why i'm suggesting that the lyrics need to be more clearly defined for what their tone is. stringfellow's quote works but the mood of them is not represented well enough.
copyediting is required, not now tho; its 3am and brainfog is hard rn (and you make terrible decisions). sorry if i can't explain myself better, i want this to be good.
Chchcheckit (
talk)
02:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit confused at what you mean by having the lyrics be "more clearly defined for what their tone is", and "the mood of them is not represented well enough". Do you mean that the composition section needs to include more information about the lyrics and their meaning than there is at the moment?
Elephantranges (
talk)
21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For example, something like:
Stipe intended for Reveal to be a "summer record", which Fletcher notes is displayed in song titles such as "I'll Take the Rain", "Beachball", and "Summer Turns to High". Additionally, Stipe utilizes a more relaxed singing style throughout, while Stringfellow has noted a lyrical theme of "personal transformation", as well as "rising, not just from adversity, but your own boundaries and limitations, the little pitfalls and weaknesses that hold you back."Stereogum noted a "wistfullness and melancholia" in contrast between its "theoretically bright images",
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, etc.
Alright, got rid of the one part that needed to be removed, and since there’s already a sentence citing Stereogum’s description of the album I think it’s all set, lemme know what you think.
Elephantranges (
talk)
22:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The song reached number six in the UK, becoming their second consecutive top 10 hit there, and was the band's first chart-topper in Japan". uDiscoverMusic may be considered unreliable. I could not find the song's chart history on Japan's Oricon charts website. Is there another source that supports this claim? (nominator has fixed this)
Sales changed from uDiscoverMusic to Buckley 2002
Images
Album artwork has appropriate fair use rationale
Windmill Lane, Nirvana and William S. Burroughs images are all tagged under appropriate Creative Commons licenses
Beach Boys image: although the image is posted without a copyright notice, the source itself, Billboard, has a copyright notice (see
here). Source on google also contains watermark stating "Copyrighted material". I'm going to seek a second opinion on this.
I've been in a similar situation when I had a page reviewed for GA last year. If we go by
Hirtle chart, any work published between 1964 and 1977 with a notice is not in the public domain for 95 years: in this case, not until 2066. Per copyright database (
here), you can see that this specific issue (November 6, 1971) had its copyright renewed in 2000. Thus it should not be public domain. I'm gonna tag for S.O. now.
Chchcheckit (
talk)
16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
sorry for relevance of renewal, see
here: "Since a copyright renewal has to be sometime in the 28th year, you'd look for renewals in the records for the original copyright date plus 27 years and the original date plus 28 years. So if the copyright was originally 1941, you'd look at the volumes for 1968 and 1969 to see if there was a renewal."
Chchcheckit (
talk)
16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Chchcheckit, this GA review is listed as requesting a second opinion, but I don't see anything in the review where you're asking a question for a second editor to respond to. Are you just asking for another reviewer to take over?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply
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
Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011
Since
Allmusic have changed the syntax of their
URLs, 1 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on
http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:
I'm currently working on the article in my
sandbox. The current version of the article already has citations in the album infobox next to the release date for each single. This source is a PDF scan of an issue of ARIA listing singles that were to come out that week (in this example, "
Imitation of Life", which it says came out on April 16, 2001). However, in one of the band's biographies, Perfect Circle by Tony Fletcher, lists the release date for this single as April 30. Which source should take precedence? I imagine the ARIA chart might since it was from the time that the single came out, and I guess that means it’s much less likely that someone misremembered the proper date. But maybe the biography is referring to the US release date? Thoughts?
Elephantranges (
talk)
01:33, 7 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Edit: *precedence I should prob learn how to spell
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.
Still going, a few minor copyedits occured here and there. Article is mainly good, it does cover the main aspects and but requires some copyediting and changes, see below.
Chchcheckit (
talk)
15:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
NME review is from 2001 and not 2005, as it has been archived
here in June 2001. I suggest tweaking the review to mix with the other contemporaneous reviews
I've inserted a use mdy dates template for consistency of date format per
WP:DATESPROJ. Text and most references are mdy but some references were not
Per
WP:PAGENUM it is preferrable to use page numbers when citing books where possible.
I wanted to see if it would be preferred to have chapters or page numbers for this article specifically - if it's changed so that each page number is cited individually, that would add a lot of clutter to the references list.
Elephantranges (
talk)
21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Promotion section is not mentioned in the lead, should be added. (nominator has fixed this)
"Multiple reviewers have compared the album to All That You Can't Leave Behind (2000) by U2, noting it as a "return to form" and a "conscious return to their classic sound." (ignore this)
Sourcing and spot checks
Earwig checks out, all quotes are cited/credited properly. GENERALLY: MOST SOURCES ARE FINE.
"The song [Imitation of Life -chch] was supported by a Garth Jennings-directed video consisting of a 20-second loop of film capturing an elaborate pool party, played forwards and backwards and zoomed in and out; the video was filmed on February 28 in Calabasas, California." Relies on singluar Facebook source, which is generally considered an unreliable source per
WP:RSPFB. Are there any reliable sources discussing the "Imitation of Life" video/supporting the content you can add? I suggest looking at the "
Imitation of Life" page for this, and/or Black 2004 chap 19 (nominator has fixed this)
"In the US, the album reached number six, the band's lowest peak since Green (1988)".: Original research relying on Billboard chart.(
WP:NOR). I suggest using Buckley 2002 and Fletcher 2013 to illustrate the differences in commercial performance of Reveal between the United States and the rest of the world; perhaps this can also be mentioned in the lead? (nominator has fixed OR)
"Generally regarded as a more optimistic and upbeat album compared to its predecessor, Reveal has also been noted as melancholic, combining a "lush" and upbeat sound with more somber elements and a darker undercurrent." Potentially
MOS:WEASEL, as it only cites one source. Are there any other sources that support the statement? Would it be better to explain/expand upon the tone of the lyrics
So would it also be better to just say "Some publications, including X and Y, described Reveal as more optimistic and upbeat blah blah blah…"? Or some variation of that.
Elephantranges (
talk)
22:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
note the text amendment: together the BBC and Stereogum references should suffice that point.
I think the formatting as it stands presently is fine, but the content needs changing for accuracy. Stereogum doesn't say there's a "contrast" but in terms of the being a mood "melancholy", it and Popmatters (2021) mention it, lyrically and/or visually. or something. the "darker undercurrent" (stereogum based again) is not musical, its thematical; which is why i'm suggesting that the lyrics need to be more clearly defined for what their tone is. stringfellow's quote works but the mood of them is not represented well enough.
copyediting is required, not now tho; its 3am and brainfog is hard rn (and you make terrible decisions). sorry if i can't explain myself better, i want this to be good.
Chchcheckit (
talk)
02:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm a bit confused at what you mean by having the lyrics be "more clearly defined for what their tone is", and "the mood of them is not represented well enough". Do you mean that the composition section needs to include more information about the lyrics and their meaning than there is at the moment?
Elephantranges (
talk)
21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)reply
For example, something like:
Stipe intended for Reveal to be a "summer record", which Fletcher notes is displayed in song titles such as "I'll Take the Rain", "Beachball", and "Summer Turns to High". Additionally, Stipe utilizes a more relaxed singing style throughout, while Stringfellow has noted a lyrical theme of "personal transformation", as well as "rising, not just from adversity, but your own boundaries and limitations, the little pitfalls and weaknesses that hold you back."Stereogum noted a "wistfullness and melancholia" in contrast between its "theoretically bright images",
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, etc.
Alright, got rid of the one part that needed to be removed, and since there’s already a sentence citing Stereogum’s description of the album I think it’s all set, lemme know what you think.
Elephantranges (
talk)
22:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)reply
"The song reached number six in the UK, becoming their second consecutive top 10 hit there, and was the band's first chart-topper in Japan". uDiscoverMusic may be considered unreliable. I could not find the song's chart history on Japan's Oricon charts website. Is there another source that supports this claim? (nominator has fixed this)
Sales changed from uDiscoverMusic to Buckley 2002
Images
Album artwork has appropriate fair use rationale
Windmill Lane, Nirvana and William S. Burroughs images are all tagged under appropriate Creative Commons licenses
Beach Boys image: although the image is posted without a copyright notice, the source itself, Billboard, has a copyright notice (see
here). Source on google also contains watermark stating "Copyrighted material". I'm going to seek a second opinion on this.
I've been in a similar situation when I had a page reviewed for GA last year. If we go by
Hirtle chart, any work published between 1964 and 1977 with a notice is not in the public domain for 95 years: in this case, not until 2066. Per copyright database (
here), you can see that this specific issue (November 6, 1971) had its copyright renewed in 2000. Thus it should not be public domain. I'm gonna tag for S.O. now.
Chchcheckit (
talk)
16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
sorry for relevance of renewal, see
here: "Since a copyright renewal has to be sometime in the 28th year, you'd look for renewals in the records for the original copyright date plus 27 years and the original date plus 28 years. So if the copyright was originally 1941, you'd look at the volumes for 1968 and 1969 to see if there was a renewal."
Chchcheckit (
talk)
16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)reply
Chchcheckit, this GA review is listed as requesting a second opinion, but I don't see anything in the review where you're asking a question for a second editor to respond to. Are you just asking for another reviewer to take over?
Mike Christie (
talk -
contribs -
library)
12:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)reply