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.
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.
From what I understand and from all the digging I've done, proper credits were never released with the album, meaning that it cannot be verified that Shara Worden was actually the female vocalist on "Impossible Soul". Furthermore, the source this Wikipedia article cites for said information is an online review—hardly a credible source by any stretch of the imagination. The fan community has been debating whether it is indeed Worden or possible Annie Clark or Nedelle Torrisi, two other vocalists with whom Stevens has been known to collaborate. Until an official (or at least less dubious) source says otherwise, we should assume that it is NOT Worden, Clark, or Torrisi—the information should not be offered, period, as it is not CREDIBLE. I would suggest that the attribution of "Impossible Soul" to Worden on this article be removed—especially as it's being cited in other online forums of discussion as proof that Worden is the vocalist. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Credits from her band MBD have now confirmed this is the case and that she performed a solo on the track. It has been referenced now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I know this is an album by an American musician, and that this bit of clarification is from the official press release for the album, but I suspect speakers of British English wouldn't actually pronounce it the same as they pronounce "odds". This is only based on the assumption that "Adz" should be universally pronounced like "ah-dz" though, so I guess it's not enough justification to change the explanation to something else, but would it be fine to remove it? Or maybe put a phonetic spelling in there, instead of a word with a pronunciation that differs depending on accent? This is way too long-winded for such a simple matter, but oh well.22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I was thinking about this myself the other day as well, but given that this comes directly from the release page on Bandcamp: , I suspect all English speakers will pronounce this title like they pronounce "odds". The most important aspect anyway is that the 'a' is given the ɒ sound instead of the æ sound. (On first seeing the title, I was tempted to think it was a lolcat spelling of "ads" :) Jujutaculartalk 03:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I see it's important to differentiate it from something like "ads"... but I think the fact is British English speakers and American English speakers pronounce "odds" differently (even though the phonetic symbol is the same, which confuses me), so they'd pronounce "Adz" differently too if they followed this rule. Listen to the different pronunciations of "hot" and "rock" here and hopefully you'll see what I mean:  I think "Adz" seems like it should be pronounced similarly to RP "ask", which would be written "osk" if you wanted an American to pronounce it the same way, I think.126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I think I see what you're getting at, but given that they wrote to pronounce it like "odds" on the bandcamp page, I can't think of a better option. Jujutaculartalk 18:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
I propose changing the numeric rating from reviewer Absolute Punk to a descriptive one. The reviewer publicy stated that: "score is irrelevant, don't put much stock into it" and "got rid of the score, shows how much I care about it" and "it's frustrating when the majority of people focus on a score (that I spent less than 10 seconds on deciding) instead of the actual review" (can be found in the comments on the review). This, coupled with the fact that the site is going to be changing to a new ratings system, makes the current numeric rating unrepresentative of the actual review. An indication of the tone and conclusion of the review ("very positive" as I edited it to before my edit was reverted, would cover it I believe) would make it clearer to the readers of the article, which I think is the key reason for there being these summary tables in the first place. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Review of Revision 17:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC). Normally I would go through a section by section check, "scanning" for issues. But I think a detailed analysis against the criteria is better for this article as it is not really the minor problems holding the article back in this case. Please see the review below. For your convenience, I used this template as it shows the full good article criteria.
Are you sure that "Critical reception of The Age of Adz was very positive"? I suggest that sentence be rewritten as the article does quote a few negative and mixed opinions to better summarize the paragraph.
The paragraph contains a few negative and mixed opinion comments to summarise the broad spectrum of response. However, from the ratings and accolades it seems pretty clear that reception was very positive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
May I ask what's with the huge gap above the Awards section?
The lead needs work. It does not do a good enough job at summarizing the full article. It says almost nothing about the Background and recording and does not mention "Impossible Soul", which has a full length paragraph in the body dedicated to itself.
Expanded significantly. I realised this would be an issue, but unfortunately had no time to update it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
Is "Awards" a good name for the section? Those are simply honors and not actual awards presented. Change the name to "Accolades" or "Honors" maybe?
Reliable sources have been used. However, the Track listing section lacks sources. Various quotes also remain unsourced. See next criterion. The genres and record label also need sources. The former could easily be integrated into a new section focusing on compositon and content. While citing, keep in mind that it is better to not have references in the lead and have them in the body. The final sentence in the first paragraph of the article is not even mentioned in the body and is unsourced.
I would NEVER trust a user comment. Look for an official source. WIKIPEDIANPENGUIN(♫♫) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
3.Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
This album did make it into many charts, so consider a Charts section. This also means a major expansion to the Sales figures and chart performance section. And do some research to see if there was any certifications (not required if there was not).
Expand the Artwork section and talk about the artwork inspiration.
Write a secton about the content of the album and move the song sample there. Take a look at these sources:  They talk about themes and music in the album. (Look for quotes from Stevens).
Consider writing about live performances maybe? There has been a few.
Per WP:ALBUM/A, a personnel and credits section would be appreciated if possible.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
I have not noticed any obvious bias in the article so it's a pass. Be careful about the first sentence in the Critical reception section though.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
Only MasterOfHisOwnDomain has contributed to the article this month as of 17:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC). Pass.
Fail: This article needs extensive work. I understand that a lot of work has been put to this article for nomination and that it would all come down to this. However, The Age of Adz largely fails many of the criteria and I strongly suggest that the article be renominated after a major clean-up and expansion, using this review as a guide for a stronger nominee. Many facts and statements lack sources to back them up, obvious information is omitted and unclear sentences are a huge hold-back. While 1 and 2 can be fixed within seven days, it's 3a that deserves lots of work and time. Write and expand any section if possible. At the most, this article stands at C-class.
Final comments about the review
Although I am not changing the overall status of this nominee (pass/fail), this page is still open for the time being for comments about the criteria and my review. Thanks. WIKIPEDIANPENGUIN(♫♫) 18:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the review, it appears very thorough and helpful. Jujutaculartalk 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to fix some of the issues. I look forward to this article being renominated, though who knows who'll review it. WIKIPEDIANPENGUIN(♫♫) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. However, I was hoping that I could respond to many of the points you raise before a final decision was passed (i.e., because I'm working on the article at the moment). I'm disappointed about that, since that's what I have done with other GANs. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand. But I also want you to take your time into expanding the article. As I said in the overall review, the small fixes can be done in a matter of seven days. I don't want you to rush with the article for a second nomination. Keep up the work! Make the next one successful. :) Oh and the charts belong in a section of their own. Thanks for your comments. WIKIPEDIANPENGUIN(♫♫) 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Criterion 1: Looks good, the prose is definitely clear and meets MOS.
Criterion 2: I'm assuming all of the sources are reliable ones, I'm not familiar with music sources, but I recognise a fair portion of them as reliable and those that I don't recognise hold similar views of the album.
Criterion 3: It looks like there's a paragraph missing from Themes. It only says that it's different to previous albums, nothing about what the themes of this album are. There is a sentence in the lead and also the 2nd paragraph in Background is kind of related, but I think it needs to be properly expanded. This needs to be addressed before I can pass it.
Criterion 4: It's neutral and stable.
Criterion 5: The album cover has a good FUR. The song sample really does add understanding and also has an appropriate rationale. Also the image of Stevens performing is well linked to the content of the article, even though it's free.
The only issue that needs addressing is the Themes section. On hold until then. James086Talk 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh one other thing, it's not clear the role that Shara Worden plays. I assume that it's vocals but I think that should be made clear. James086Talk 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Appreciate the review. Shara Worden's role is mentioned earlier as backing vocals and a solo on the respective song, but I've repeated the information for Personnel. Will shortly add some more on Themes. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, sorry I must have forgotten reading that in the background section! James086Talk 15:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I've doubled the size of the Themes section and in that are some of the biggest themes of the album. Is that sufficient, in your opinion, or is more required? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that is a sufficient expansion to call the article comprehensive. Nice work! James086Talk 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)