Talk:Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Eurohunter (talk · contribs) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: I started review. Comments will be below. Review within 2023 GAN Backlog Drives. Eurohunter (talk) 19:32, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter: It's been over a week since you started review. When are you going to finish it? Lazman321 (talk) 04:58, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: I think it should be ready this evening or tomorrow. Eurohunter (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

No need to capitalise all leters in "END OF LIFE ENTERTAINMENT SCENARIO #1". Same for "ECCOJAMC1" in "Reception and legacy". Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Lopatin released an official remaster for digital download from his website on November 22, 2016, being available in MP3 and FLAC formats." - i'm not sure if there is a need to mention formats. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no introduction to previous and next album in the text. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reception and legacy

""mash the chopped and screwed plunderphonics of Dan Lopatin...with" - shouldn't there be space after dots? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Well – the entire point of Eccojams was that it was a DIY" - I think "DIY" could be linked. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

There is full date of 2016 release in section "Background and release". Is this the same release or not? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other

Add links to archived versions in references. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Full name Chuck Person's Eccojams Vol. 1 could be used more in the article. 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Reference number 28. How do I know it's published by official account? Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is 2020 remastered and it's not mentioned in the article. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did minor fixes. Eurohunter (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

Usually, I address each request individually with a comment underneath. Because this seems to be interfering with the # markup's function, I will be condensing my comments. I have done most your of requests, but there are a few that I want to respond to:

I am sure what you are asking in your last request for the background section.
- @Lazman321: What do you mean? Eurohunter (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am very sorry for my typo. What I meant to say was, "I am not sure what you are asking..." Lazman321 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Any specific doubts? Eurohunter (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Eurohunter: I don't know what you mean by "There is no introduction to previous and next album in the text." Lazman321 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        They are not mentioned in the text. Eurohunter (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh...what? What are you talking about? What's not mentioned? Lazman321 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said previous and next album is not mentioned in the text. They are only in infobox right now. Eurohunter (talk) 07:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening the title to Eccojams Vol. 1 appears to have been established long before I started working on this article and it's not a precedent I'm inclined to disregard. For consistency, only the first mention in the lead and body respectively will have the full title.
- There is no need to use shorter name all the time. Add variation. Eurohunter (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is even less of a need to add variation. Lazman321 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - How? It's repetitive then. I would rather use only full name than short. Eurohunter (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Look, here's what I'm willing to do. Rather than have the full name only be mentioned once in the body, I will have it be mentioned once at the beginning of each section. That way, there's variation and consistency. Lazman321 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        It's good. Eurohunter (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 28 is a verified AMA. The two sources used next to reference 28 confirm its legitimacy.
- What is AMA? Add information about legitimacy as note between }} Add note here.</ref> Eurohunter (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - AMA is short for "Ask Me Anything". They are Reddit posts that allow users to ask the poster questions for the poster to respond. I don't need to add information about Lopatin's AMAs being legitimate because that should already be implied by how the information is presented in the article. Lazman321 (talk)
    - @Lazman321: No. You are supposed to add custom note in reference as I mentioned above. Eurohunter (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why? Never before has any GAN or even FAC reviewer ever asked for, nor have I ever seen a custom note placed within a social media citation to confirm that a post is from the creator. One of my featured articles, Plants vs. Zombies (video game), uses an AMA as a primary source and I wasn't asked to append some custom note. Name one policy, guideline, essay, whatever that actually says for me to do what you are asking. Lazman321 (talk) 16:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lazman321: Anyone can say it's user generated source. Eurohunter (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Eurohunter: That's not what I asked. WP:USERGENERATED is a reliability guideline; it doesn't tell me to place a custom note in a reference, and aside from that, the policy of WP:ABOUTSELF allows user-generated posts if they're from an official account of the work's creator, which is undoubtedly the case for the source we're discussing. What guideline explicitly says for me to add a custom note in the reference to verify its authenticity? Lazman321 (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        @Lazman321: "official account of the work's creator" – yes I agree, but there is no profile badge or anything which would tell me that's the official profile, so you have to add a note. Anyone can create such thread. Eurohunter (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a 2020 remaster, I can't find any sources of it.
- Is this tweet from his official account? Eurohunter (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...How is that relevant? Whether or not the account is official, the tweet is talking about the 2016 remaster. Lazman321 (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't know, just tried to find this release. Eurohunter (talk) 19:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Lazman321 (talk) 02:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I would like a second opinion right about now. As a nominator, I have never been in such prolonged disputes over relatively minor things in the review process and I'm running low on patience right now. I just don't know what to say right now. Eurohunter, could you change the status of the GAN template on the talk page to "2ndopinion" to formally request a second opinion from another reviewer? I don't think have the power to do that myself as a nominator. And whoever responds, could you please settle the disputes once and for all? Do I have to add a custom note to the AMA reference to verify its authenticity or legitimacy? And do I really have to mention the previous and current albums from the infobox in the article body, especially since Replica is already mentioned in the reception and legacy section? Lazman321 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321: I focus on quality, so that's why I want to make it as best as possible. I don't know why you are so impatient and don't want to just add needed information. It's simple - if there is no way for the reader to confirm the status of the account, then you should add a note. I added second opinion request. Eurohunter (talk) 17:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may be beneficial for the reviewer to read through the WP guideline for reviewing good articles, particularly the section on imposing your personal criteria. Although the list may be out-of-date, GA review mentors are also available to help with the process. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion on AMA source

My comments here are narrowly focused on the question of how the AMA source (ref 28 in Special:Permalink/1180453438) should be treated. I consulted WP:SOCIALMEDIA and found that it meets all five bullet points. Therefore the source is acceptable in its current form. Returning this to status=onreview. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eurohunter @Lazman321 just making sure you both are aware that I've finished the 2O. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, nothing seems to be happening here, so I'm going to declare this review abandoned per WP:GAN/I#N4a RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]