Talk:The Joshua Tree/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Merbabu, firstly sorry for the delay in posting my review. The article is very good so well done! It covers all the major topics as far as I can tell, is a decent read and uses media appropriately (with one exception - see below) I do have several concerns that need to be addressed however, so I'm placing the article on hold. As the article is so large I'll be making several posts rather than dealing with everything at once. I'll first post my major concerns with the article as a whole then go through section by section.

General/Major concerns

1. Work needs to be done with many of the references e.g. 14. The Independent You should use the webcite template below to include info such as the writer, date of publication etc. Also you need to split the two references that appear at 54. Cites to books in the reference section are fine.

   {{cite web|last=|first=|title=|work=|date=|url=|accessdate=}}

   Still some minor problems with references, for instance the U2 FAQs.com ref doesn't have an access date. Y

2. Ref 81. links to Wikipedia itself (albeit the Dutch version) Wikipedia is not a reliable source so you'll need to find another link Y
3. I believe the cover image used in the infobox for the reissue fails WP:NFCC#8. I think an image of the complete box set, showing the various goodies would be ok, however. Y
4. The 20th anniversary section generally feels a bit stubby, especially considering the depth of the rest of the article. Do you have any of the band's thoughts on the reissue? Were they involved in it's release? Who did the remastering? &c.
5. The quotes in boxes throughout the article are nice but it's my understanding that they should be used to back up/expand on themes talked about in the main body. Several of them seem to talk about ideas which aren't discussed elsewhere. For instance, in 'Composition' the quote by Bono about thematic inspirations seems fine but the one about the Irish nature of the album does not. Y

• 2 - done --Merbabu (talk) 10:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• 3 - Hmmm - I'm don't know much about copyright and fair use, but I understand album covers on the album page are considered fair use. What do you make of the fair use rationale? Does it need improving? A pic of the re-release would indeed be good - for the re-release section. Not sure where I'm going to get that, but I can try.--Merbabu (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll be home from University in half a week or so; I have the super deluxe box set so I could take a picture of that then with the bonus discs and such arranged around it. Although since they all display album artwork, wouldn't that also be a violation of NFCC? MelicansMatkin (talk, contributions) 14:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

To include non-free media in an article there has to be good reason. For example covers are allowed in the (main) infobox as they aid "identification in the context of critical commentary of the work" I don't believe the second instance of the cover art does this because it's pretty much exactly the same as the original cover art. If you talk about the goodies that come with the box set then I think it's acceptable to include a picture of the lot to back up your prose. I'm a bit unsure about whether you should remove the second infobox and just include this as a standalone image though - the infobox doesn't really seem to do much and, although it may have bonus tracks &c., the 20th anniversary ed. is really the same 'work' as the original release. Cavie78 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• 5 - done - I found two that weren't linked to the info in the prose. I added info to the prose for one and removed another, however, I don't really think removal is necessary. I could merge it into the prose, but the whole article, is based on attributed opinion ("Bono said", "Critic X said", etc) and this would be just one more. It seems like a fairly significant viewpoint, and one that was deserving of being there in full. --Merbabu (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

If you've added info to the prose then I'm fine with that as long as the quotes in boxes serve to highlight major aspects of the relevant sections and aren't just there to make the article look pretty. Remember that you're effectively copying someone else's copyrighted work from a magazine, TV programme or whatever so you have to be able to justify its use. Cavie78 (talk) 11:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Background

1. I think the first paragraph could do a better job of establishing the section. The quote from McGuinness and the info about Bono's reading habits are good but they appear out of nowhere. I'd suggest starting with something about the band wanting to record a 'roots' album and then go on to explain why this decision was made. Y
2. "U2 began considering a new album in mid-1985." Considering releasing a new album? Writing and recording? Y
3. "The band felt disconnected from the dominant synthpop and New Wave music of the time." This sentence needs moving somewhere else in the section - it feels rather out of place at the minute. Could you link it up with, say, the last paragraph? Y
4. "Dylan told Bono of his own debt to Irish music" Seems a bit stubby, can you merge? Y
5. "U2 explored American blues, country, and gospel music, musical interests" music and musical coming next to each other doesn't sound right. Also how did the band explore this music? Presumably just by listening to it? Y
6. ""had no tradition...[and that they]...were from outer space"" You should split this quote up, removing the need for the square brackets and ...'s e.g. "Bono realized that U2 "had no tradition" and felt that they were "from outer space", as most of their musical knowledge began with punk rock..." Y

2 - From memory, the video ref providing said "thinking about" - but I've changed the article to "started writing for" --Merbabu (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

3 - Hmmm, this one's hard. That sentence came from the same source as the previous sentence. And, it flowed directly after it. Will consider over the next few days. --Merbabu (talk) 14:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

4 - merged - see point 5 below. --Merbabu (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

5 - Agreed - and I've changed it completely. The American reference was out of place and repeated. Thus, now changed to this. --Merbabu (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

6 - Change to "had no tradition" and that they "were from outer space". --Merbabu (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing, recording, and production

1. "Steve Lillywhite, the producer of the band's first three albums, had been more focused on the vocals and guitars." This sentence seems a bit out of place? Is it really necessary? You've already established that Lanois and Eno were the first producers the band had worked with who "really took an interest in the rhythm section". Y
2. "He had worked with the Virgin Prunes and had been recommended by Bono's long-time friend Gavin Friday, and the band liked his work with Nick Cave." This sentence needs rewriting. Had he recently worked with the Virgin Prunes? The info about Nick Cave feels tacked on to the end. Consider starting the sentence with 'Flood' and changing the following sentence to start with 'He' to avoid repetition. Y
3. "They intended to release an album at the end of 1986, but the release date was later pushed back to early 1987." This sentence feels out of place coming at the end of a paragraph about recording personnel - could you move it to the following paragraph? It could also do with rewriting along the lines of "The band had originally intended to release a new album at the end of 1986..." Maybe place the info about the release date being pushed back where it happened (for instance if the decision was made when the band were in Windmill then place it there) and explain why. Y
4. What is "outboard equipment"? Can you use a wikilink? Y
5. "created in the adjacent room" and "large doors separating the rooms" Adjacent to what? You talk about three different rooms in the preceding sentence. And which rooms were separated? Y
6. What's a "double ceiling height"? Y
7. ""ear-splitting" drum sound that, while difficult to work with, ended up on the finished album." I know what you mean but you should be more explicit about the fact that drum takes recorded at Danesmoate were used on the album. Y
8. "He thought the room sounded better than Slane Castle, and he was particularly impressed with the room's "low mid-range...where the music lives", properties that he says were a major factor in the success of the The Joshua Tree." There's only one property here. You should find a link for mid-range. Y
9. "(Bassist Adam Clayton bought Danesmoate in 1987 and it remains his Dublin home)." You should remove the brackets and put at the end of last paragraph discussing recording at Danesmoate (don't remove though as I think it's relevant) I was completely confused thanks to its current placing, thinking that the Dansmoate sessions had finished then wondering why/where the band were going through tapes of soundcheck jams.

   I'm still not happy with the placing of this statement. It seems to me (I may be wrong!) that we're still 'at' Danesmoate in the following paragraph so this "what happened after" info jars in my opinion, and would be much better at the end of that paragraph. Y

10. "two of the album's most significant songs" I presume the O'Hare cite backs up "significant"? Y
11. "Subsequent sessions at STS Studios with Paul Barnett in Dublin" Presumably Barnett is an engineer? You should state his role so the reader doesn't think he's a producer. Y
12. "For Clayton, the tour validated the "rawness of content"" The rawness of what content? The song's they'd been working on? I think you could word this better. Y

    Ok, will leave.

13. "In July, Bono travelled to Central America and saw first hand the distress of peasants bullied in political conflicts, which would form the basis of "Bullet the Blue Sky" and "Mothers of the Disappeared"" The basis of the lyrics? Y
14. "In August, Robbie Robertson, the former guitarist and chief songwriter with The Band, recorded two songs with U2 at Danesmoate that appear on his self-titled solo album." Should probably rewrite, I'd suggest something along the lines of "In August U2 took time out from the sessions to return to Danesmoate and record two tracks with former The Band member, Robbie Robertson, for inclusion on on his self-titled solo album." Also do you know why this happened? Were they friends? Y
15. "AMEK 2500 desk" Probably best to say AMEK 2500 mixing desk and link mixing desk. Y
16. "without automation" You should find a link and/or explain what automation is in the context of mixing desks. Y
17. "SLL desk" As above use "mixing desk" (no need to link this time though, natch) Y
18. "Eno and Flood had minimal involvement with the final mixes. In late December, U2 called in Steve Lillywhite to remix a few of the new songs" Why weren't Eno and Flood involved? Why was Lillywhite called in to remix? Were the band/Island unhappy with McCarthy and Lanois's mixes? Y
19. "A tune called '"Birdland" was considered too good for a B-side and was kept for later use." I guess the track saw it's only release on the 20th anniversary ed? Again I guess the band originally intended to use it on their next album and/or release as a single? You could maybe say something about this here. Y
20. "Although the group were rarely content with their completed albums in the past" Suggest changing to "Although the group had rarely been content with their completed albums up to that point" (assuming that's what you mean of course) Y
21. "Bono said, "I'm as pleased with the record as I can ever be pleased with a record", calling it a "very complete" album." When did Bono say this? Would be good to state whether it was after the records release or whether it was years later Y

• 1 - I've removed the Lillywhite guitars and vocals mention per your recommendation. I'm not so sure about this though. Mullen mentions this exact point comparison between the three producers, and while it's implied without it, I'm not sure there's anyone harm in stating it explicitly. But, it's gone for now - if a third party wants to comment either way....? --Merbabu (talk) 15:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the info as such it just felt a bit tagged on as it was. Cavie78 (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• 3 - The source clearly links this to the band's position in Jan 1986 - so I moved it up to this period. hope that satisfies. --Merbabu (talk) 16:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks better. Cavie78 (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• 10 - The O'Hare cite calls the two of the most significant. I think any with a knowledge of the album (and indeed rock/pop radio around the world since 1987) would agree. Is this one done? --Merbabu (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's fine, was just clearing up as "significant" is a bit POV Cavie78 (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

• 11 - Done. And, it's Paul Barrett not Paul Barnett - but not Paul Barrett. --Merbabu (talk) 10:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• 14 - clarified (i hope).
• 15 - added in "mixing" and mixing desk is already linked in that section. --Merbabu (talk) 09:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok Cavie78 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• 16 - I've added a link to console automation. I hope that will suffice? --Merbabu (talk) 09:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks good Cavie78 (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• 18 - Done. --Merbabu (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
• 19 - While the article does mention that it was re-used on the 20th anniversary edition (in the next sentence infact), what the band intended to do with it at the time (1986/87) is anyone's guess. Perhaps it is documented somewhere, or perhaps, and more likely, U2 themselves had no real idea. Personally, I don't know that it's all that important but I've tried to tightened it up a bit. --Merbabu (talk) 08:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
• 20 & 21 - This has now since gone through a few iterations - it now states when (ie, on completion of the album). --Merbabu (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Composition

1. "contributing to the feeling of spiritual yearning and the song's gospel sound" Where's the cite for this? Is it 21? Y
2. "The initial concept for the album was where the desert met civilisation." This could be worded better. Y
3. "For "Where the Streets Have No Name", he conceived the lyrics with the idea that one could determine a person's religion and income based on where they lived in Belfast." Again I think this could be worded better. Y
4. "The album was informed by Bono's distressed personal life, as he called 1986 "an incredibly bad year for me"." Not sure "distressed" is the right word here. You'd probably be better to say "...personal life—he called..." as well rather than use the word "as" Y
5. I'm not sure that the paragraph about joshua trees fits in the 'composition' section. Consider moving to the 'Packaging and title' section. Y
6. Wikipedia:Music samples suggests that all music samples should be a maximum of 30 seconds. Can you trim a second from the "Streets Have No Name" clip? Y

1. I removed this for now. It wasn't referenced, and not quite on the mark. --Merbabu (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

2. It's clear from the source that their talking about the title and sleeve, so I moved it accordingly and rephrased it slightly. --Merbabu (talk) 13:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

3. How's this? --Merbabu (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

That's better, I added the word "based" Cavie78 (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

5. Seems to have been done. --Merbabu (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Y2kcrazyjoker4 said he'd addressed some of my concerns so he may have moved. Cavie78 (talk) 14:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Packaging and title

1. "developed the idea for the sleeve design from the album's "cinematic location" in the desert" There's something not quite right about this - how does an album have a location? Do you mean the albums's themes? Y

I've expanded the quotation a bit, and attributed it to The Edge. [1] Does that work? --Merbabu (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. "many of these locations appeared on the album" The photos taken during the shoot or other pictures of the locations? Y

Fixed. --Merbabu (talk) 12:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

3. There should be alt text for the images. Y

Release and singles

1. The first paragraph feels like it would be better in the 'background' section - the release section should just talk about issues specifically relating to the release. Y

WIth the release section, I had hoped to create a narrative that showed the so-called "phenomenon" of the album's release and how things had changed. I tried to do this by setting the pre-JT scene, then discuss the sales, the (first) grammies, Time magazine, fastest selling , etc. I particularly wanted to do this in a single concise section, rather than spreading it out. What do you think? --Merbabu (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. "It was the first album to sell one million CD copies" I'm not sure if this should be made clearer - I initially thought you meant the first U2 album until I remembered that it was released in the 80's so you probably meant "by any artist". This may just be because it's early on a Saturday morning and I'm still tired mind! Y

How about: It was the first album by any artist to sell one million copies on CD in the United States.? --Merbabu (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds clearer. Cavie78 (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

3. The info about the Grammys seems like it would fit better in 'Critical reception' Y

See my response to point 1. --Merbabu (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I still think you'd be better putting info about the Grammys in the reception section but it's not a deal breaker so I'm happy to leave as is.

4. You need to sort out the 'citation needed' tag for the last paragraph. In fact the whole para seems to be devoid of cites. Y

Done. --Merbabu (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

5. The stuff about b-sides in the previous paragraph would probably be better been merged with the last one. Also, presumably the b-sides were the same on all the releases? You only mention the US. Y

The b-side info is now all in one paragraph. And, I removed the info on the vinyl versions. It's uncited, and personally, I think it's a bit trivial. --Merbabu (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Critical reception

1. "the best of U2's career to date." This seems ambiguous - "up to that point" or "as of 2010"? Y

I've changed it to "up to that point", but then that could imply they were better later. How about "the best they had received"?--Merbabu (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy with that. Cavie78 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

2. "longtime U2 supporter" Do you have a cite? Could be viewed as OR. Y

I'm sure I actually have the phrase "Long time U2 supporter", or similar, in a book somewhere - in the meantime, I'm not sure how to cite it. He's written 3 books about U2's early days. --Merbabu (talk) 11:20, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok that's fine, just checking. Cavie78 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

1. "According to RIAA sales figures, as of January 2005, The Joshua Tree ranks as the 89th best-selling album of all-time in the US. and, as of 2006, the 26th best-selling album in the UK" Several problems with this. There's an extraneous full stop after US. You make it sound as though the RIAA have certified JT as the 26th best selling album in the UK? Should it be "ranked" past tense as it was 2005? Y

The source provided turns out not to specifically mention the RIAA (but I don't doubt that it is), and the US figures are now July 2009 with the album coming in at 66th according to my count. I didn't write this bit - maybe the other U2 editors (who are better with charts, etc, than me) can look into it. In the meantime I've written this for the US section:

July 2009 sales data ranks The Joshua Tree as the 66th best-selling album of all-time in the US.

Oh, I've now separated the US and UK sentences so hopefully no confusion over the RIAA--Merbabu (talk) 11:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Track listing

1. "Singer Kirsty MacColl and wife of producer Steve Lillywhite" You make it sound like two different people - consider revising to something along the lines of Singer and wife of producer Steve Lillywhite, Kirsty MacColl worked out the running order for the songs. Also why did she do this? Presumably related to Lillywhite remixing some of the tracks? Y

Changed to:

While the the band and crew worked on the mixing, Lillywhite's wife, singer Kirsty MacColl, volunteered to set the running order for the album. The band told her to put "Where the Streets Have No Name" first and "Mothers of the Disappeared" last. The rest were sequenced according to her preference, which the band kept. --Merbabu (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

2. The BMG Music Club stuff needs cites as does the info about the 1996 remaster and 2007 reissue.

I could only find some flimsy refs for the 1996 remaster - that's not to say it didn't happen - I remember seeing it in the stores (for $70 or something!). I made these changes. Indeed, one of the sites is spam protected by wikipedia hence my odd formatting. Note I removed a bit of trivia/OR about changes in tracks. Alternatively, I won't mind if this 1996 release is deemed too trivial to even mention at all. What do you all think - remove? --Merbabu (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - I've moved it up to the "Release" section - but I'm now thinking it might be better just to remove it altogether? --Merbabu (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd leave in the remastered info but I think the stuff about the BMG release was a bit trivial. I'm not sure about the sentence "On this edition, the incorrect track splitting between "One Tree Hill" and "Exit" that affected earlier CD releases was rectified." Seems like you should either remove or say a tiny bit more about the incorrect track splitting. Cavie78 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

20th Anniversary edition

1. As I've said I think this section could do with expanding.
2. I'm not too sure about the external link to United Record Pressing. Also the word "historic" is a bit POV - is this backed up by source 70? Speaking of which the link seems to go to a list of U2 news stories for 2009 but I can't see one that relates to the 20th anniversary ed.

That's it for now, more to come tomorrow. Cavie78 (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I haven't been around for a few days, but I hope go through all this later today. cheers --Merbabu (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I've addressed a great deal of the prose problems listed above. The Wikilinking, additional information, clarifications, etc are things I didn't attempt to tackle. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cavie - thanks for your review. It's very thorough, and I'm impressed that you're promising to do more. There's a few of us with our eyes on it, but as for me, the weekend is nigh so I will try to work on that if I can pull myself away from my way-too-cute-newborn and painting my new kitchen. Right now, I've had a few too many glasses of fine South Australian Shiraz to be of really effective use, but I will continue to tinker a bit more.

In the meantime, could you please elaborate on your "neutral" ratings for criteria 2 and 3 - or, is your explanation for this within your detailed notes? --Merbabu (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Merbabu, yeah my explanations for giving neutral votes for 3 and 4 are contained within the review itself. Hope the Shiraz didn't give you too bad a hangover. Cavie78 (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Have gone through and added Y's to all the points that I think have been addressed to make it easier for the remaining issues to be dealt with. Cavie78 (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Everything except for the 20th anniversary section should be taken care of. I don't see what the issue is with the "Streets" sample - if you click play, it shows as 30 seconds long. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 13:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, will have a look through. The sample's no big deal it just shows up as 31 seconds on the file page itself. Happy to leave as it is though as the file does show as 30 seconds when you play it as you say. Cavie78 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looks like it's just the 20th Anniversary ed. section that needs to be sorted out before I can promote to GA. Cavie78 (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find much content about the reason for the re-release or the work that went into it, aside from what I've added (e.g. quote of Paul McGuinness' that mentions fan demand). I've removed the word "historic" from the Nashville pressing center. Let me know what you think. Y2kcrazyjoker4 (talk) 17:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

That looks better to me, am happy to promote. Well done to all involved! Cavie78 (talk) 09:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)