Sad Machine is part of the Worlds series, a
good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it,
please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Dibs. After I finish my FAC that you've commented on, I'll review this. I love this song.
@
MFTP Dan: Thank you for considering reviewing this article! However, reviews usually should be completed in seven days, as stated by
WP:GAN/I#R2: "Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner [...] plan to wrap up your review in about seven days." I understand you like the song, but if you plan to review it only after the FAC (which may take a month of more), the best course of action would be to start the review only after the FAC, if no one takes it in the meantime That way, I'd like to ask you if you are interested in reviewing this article while the FAC is running or if you would like to withdraw the review for now, starting again after the FAC if no one takes it in the meantime. Skyshiftertalk23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, I apologize, I wasn't aware of that caveat. Something must have changed in the review instructions that I didn't know about. If that's what you'd wish, I will throw it back in the pool until I'm done.
mftp danoops23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I felt this one was 100% due to be picked up since not only was the previous review abandoned, you also have two pending in the queue! --
K. Peake07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Infobox and lead
The recording year is not directly sourced in the body's prose
I believe this is implied by "Originally, 'Flicker' would be the album's second single, after 'Sea of Voices'. However, he then wrote 'Sad Machine' and decided to change the song three days before it came out". This is because Robinson wrote "Sad Machine" after "
Sea of Voices" had already been released.
WP:OVERLINK of Peter Robinson under songwriters in the infobox
Fixed
Mention in the first sentence that it was recorded for his debut studio album, Worlds (2014).
Done
"It was released on May 13, 2014 as" → "The song was released on May 13, 2014, as"
Fixed
Change this sentence to calling it the second single from the album since the title should be mentioned in the first sentence like I have laid out here
Done
The lead is somewhat disordered; move the elements that Robinson wanted to the second sentence and make concept the third sentence, then the release one
Tried to reorganize it according to how the article is organized
"Critics noted inspirations from
synth-pop," → "Critics noted the song as
synth-pop and the inspirations from" adding Sigur Rós too and I believe you could start a new para here
Done
Before the commercial performance sentence, add one regarding the reviews of the song and a separate sentence about rankings for the song
I prefer adding sentences regarding reviews (i.e. in the format "It received generally positive reviews from critics") only when sources explicitly comment on it. The rankings are pretty diverse so I decided to mention the Vice one only.
You should also mention from the source about it being his favorite how he felt that the song served to summarize the album and place everything together
Done
"wistful and nostalgic."" → "wistful and nostalgic"." per
MOS:QUOTE, re-invoking the ref here since it is a direct quote
Done
Audio sample rationale is fine, although add something like how the Vocaloid resembles a robot for more info suitably
Added some info that was in the Worlds article.
"and the human boy."" → "and the human boy"." re-invoking the ref too per usage of direct quote
Done
"evocative of fiction?"." → "evocative of fiction?"" since the question mark works in place of a full-stop
Done
"and described its use as the" → "and found its use of the" to be less repetitive
Done
Wikilink
synth-pop only on the first occasion instead
Done
"feeling of the previous single," → "feeling of the album's
lead single" with the wikilink
Done
"said that this was one" → "said that "Sad Machine" was one"
Change Region to Various since it cannot be verified to be released in every single country; I guarantee this was not available in North Korea
Done
Add a ref column then ones to back up these being released in various countries
Done
Notes
The "Clarity" vocals are not sampled
I don't understand your suggestion. However, I noticed that the reference doesn't support the note, and I'm 100% sure there was a source for it but I couldn't find it. So it's now removed.
It is part of the title and Worlds passed FAC with it, so I think it can be kept.
Cite AXS as publisher instead and pipe to
AXS (company) on ref 16
Done
External links
Good
Final comments and verdict
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, this has a few sloppy areas but some is better than that like the lead and reception; nice work! --
K. Peake08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Skyshifter: I would say you still need to add a sentence noting what the reviews here show the critics praised and regarding my typo on the notes section, I meant the source did not back it up but thanks for removing ahead of my correction! --
K. Peake07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
✓Pass now, very good that you added critical reception now summarizing although the repeat refs were not needed! --
K. Peake20:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Sad Machine is part of the Worlds series, a
good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the
Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it,
please do so.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
songs 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.SongsWikipedia:WikiProject SongsTemplate:WikiProject Songssong articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Electronic 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.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
Dibs. After I finish my FAC that you've commented on, I'll review this. I love this song.
@
MFTP Dan: Thank you for considering reviewing this article! However, reviews usually should be completed in seven days, as stated by
WP:GAN/I#R2: "Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner [...] plan to wrap up your review in about seven days." I understand you like the song, but if you plan to review it only after the FAC (which may take a month of more), the best course of action would be to start the review only after the FAC, if no one takes it in the meantime That way, I'd like to ask you if you are interested in reviewing this article while the FAC is running or if you would like to withdraw the review for now, starting again after the FAC if no one takes it in the meantime. Skyshiftertalk23:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, I apologize, I wasn't aware of that caveat. Something must have changed in the review instructions that I didn't know about. If that's what you'd wish, I will throw it back in the pool until I'm done.
mftp danoops23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)reply
I felt this one was 100% due to be picked up since not only was the previous review abandoned, you also have two pending in the queue! --
K. Peake07:08, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Infobox and lead
The recording year is not directly sourced in the body's prose
I believe this is implied by "Originally, 'Flicker' would be the album's second single, after 'Sea of Voices'. However, he then wrote 'Sad Machine' and decided to change the song three days before it came out". This is because Robinson wrote "Sad Machine" after "
Sea of Voices" had already been released.
WP:OVERLINK of Peter Robinson under songwriters in the infobox
Fixed
Mention in the first sentence that it was recorded for his debut studio album, Worlds (2014).
Done
"It was released on May 13, 2014 as" → "The song was released on May 13, 2014, as"
Fixed
Change this sentence to calling it the second single from the album since the title should be mentioned in the first sentence like I have laid out here
Done
The lead is somewhat disordered; move the elements that Robinson wanted to the second sentence and make concept the third sentence, then the release one
Tried to reorganize it according to how the article is organized
"Critics noted inspirations from
synth-pop," → "Critics noted the song as
synth-pop and the inspirations from" adding Sigur Rós too and I believe you could start a new para here
Done
Before the commercial performance sentence, add one regarding the reviews of the song and a separate sentence about rankings for the song
I prefer adding sentences regarding reviews (i.e. in the format "It received generally positive reviews from critics") only when sources explicitly comment on it. The rankings are pretty diverse so I decided to mention the Vice one only.
You should also mention from the source about it being his favorite how he felt that the song served to summarize the album and place everything together
Done
"wistful and nostalgic."" → "wistful and nostalgic"." per
MOS:QUOTE, re-invoking the ref here since it is a direct quote
Done
Audio sample rationale is fine, although add something like how the Vocaloid resembles a robot for more info suitably
Added some info that was in the Worlds article.
"and the human boy."" → "and the human boy"." re-invoking the ref too per usage of direct quote
Done
"evocative of fiction?"." → "evocative of fiction?"" since the question mark works in place of a full-stop
Done
"and described its use as the" → "and found its use of the" to be less repetitive
Done
Wikilink
synth-pop only on the first occasion instead
Done
"feeling of the previous single," → "feeling of the album's
lead single" with the wikilink
Done
"said that this was one" → "said that "Sad Machine" was one"
Change Region to Various since it cannot be verified to be released in every single country; I guarantee this was not available in North Korea
Done
Add a ref column then ones to back up these being released in various countries
Done
Notes
The "Clarity" vocals are not sampled
I don't understand your suggestion. However, I noticed that the reference doesn't support the note, and I'm 100% sure there was a source for it but I couldn't find it. So it's now removed.
It is part of the title and Worlds passed FAC with it, so I think it can be kept.
Cite AXS as publisher instead and pipe to
AXS (company) on ref 16
Done
External links
Good
Final comments and verdict
On hold until all of the issues are fixed, this has a few sloppy areas but some is better than that like the lead and reception; nice work! --
K. Peake08:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Skyshifter: I would say you still need to add a sentence noting what the reviews here show the critics praised and regarding my typo on the notes section, I meant the source did not back it up but thanks for removing ahead of my correction! --
K. Peake07:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply
✓Pass now, very good that you added critical reception now summarizing although the repeat refs were not needed! --
K. Peake20:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply