Talk:Concept album/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 19:11, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	No issues noted.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues noted.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	OK outside of the scope of what I would consider OR.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	What's there appears appropriate.
	2c. it contains no original research.	First sentence in the lead... whose definition? Where does it come from? Looks an awful lot like well-meaning and not inappropriate inference, but synthesis nonetheless.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig's tool finds two direct quotes which are properly cited, nothing else significant.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See comments
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Sure, but that's not the problem here.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No partisanship noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues noted.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	3/3 look fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Sorta? Hard to illustrate an abstract noun, and the three images are fine, even if oddly monochromatic. It would be nice to have more/better images from the peak of the prog rock era, rather than just illustrations of Guthrie and Sinatra.
	7. Overall assessment.

First thoughts

OR is the problem here, and I don't see how it's surmountable without a complete rewrite:

Which is the first concept album? Sgt. Pepper's? Tommy? Pet Sounds? or Dust Bowl Ballads? On what basis, when reliable sources disagree, do we provide an answer in Wikipedia's voice?
What is the definition of a concept album? On what basis do we create a synthesized definition integrating elements of multiple RS attempts to define a concept album?

There's a lot missing in the discussion, like almost all of the 70's. Rush, Styx, TSO off the top of my head, but The Wall isn't even mentioned once. How is that even remotely reasonable? Yes, Dark Side is a concept album too, but The Wall's themes (musical and narrative) are significantly more integrated.

This is a rare quick-fail from me. There's nothing here that can be quickly remedied--this is an awesome topic, and it needs a fuller treatment than this is so far. I don't see a GA on concept album being less than double the current size--especially if it gives an overview of the prog rock era in the process.

As with all GA nominated articles I fail, I will absolutely make it my first effort to review the article should you decide to tackle the problems and bring it back to GAN. Jclemens (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: What is there to say about The Wall or other albums by Rush, Styx, or TSO in the context of concept albums? Can you name one way in which any of these artists contributed to the format's stylistic development or cultural status?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in reference to "OR" in the lead, the opening sentence is sourced from quotes by Cullen and Shuker in the body. It seems like you failed this mainly because you didn't see your favorite album mentioned. There is no way to address any of your "what-about-this-band" concerns without infringing upon WP:NPOV or creating a WP:NAMEDROP issue. And we can't WP:SYNTHESIZE claims for "the first concept album".--Ilovetopaint (talk) 02:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I get that you're not happy to have this wait in a queue for weeks then have a stranger come along and tell you that it's not even in sufficient shape to be put on hold, but I would encourage you to be a little more reflective and a little less defensive.

When you're ready to work on improving the article with the feedback I gave, rather than trying to infer my motives, let me know. In the mean time, I would encourage you to consider how to best and most effectively cover the 1970's in the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens: I addressed your OR concerns. The only other suggestions you have are "please solidify the first concept album" and "please mention The Wall". I'm telling you:

We can't say which was the "first" concept album because there is no consistency among sources. Read: WP:YESPOV
You believe prog-era concept albums were more significant than this article suggests but you haven't explained how or why other than that they existed. Read: WP:SELF-SOURCING

.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ilovetopaint OK, so I keep mulling this over, and here's a concrete suggestion for what I'd like to see in breadth of coverage before re-reviewing it: Look at List of concept albums and pick some arbitrary sales or chart position threshold. Cover every concept album above that level at a bare minimum, and clean up the list as you go. I would generally focus on 'firsts' or 'bests', knowing that is where the RS will be concentrated, but still expect the article to be 2-3x as long as it was when reviewed. Then, add albums where RS's cite a lasting influence. I expect Tales of Mystery and Imagination (Alan Parsons Project album) would likely meet that additional standard. Thus, when done, what I envision as a GA on concept album would not simply say, "here are a few firsts, then prog rock and musical theater happened", but trace the evolution of concept albums, including through subgenres, from origin to present. Jclemens (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed reply. Tales of Mystery and Imagination peaked at #38 and I can't find anything about it having a lasting influence. I notice again that you've failed to address what exactly was notable about any specific concept albums from after the early 1970s. If you want a list of concept albums by chart position, then a better solution would be to revamp List of concept albums in a table format that contains such information. If you want more examples of influential concept albums, you need to say why they were influential in the context of being a concept album. Because I can't find too many.

The suggestions you gave to artificially stretch out this article are similar to listing every top 40 single ever recorded at Pop music and then justifying its mention with some WP:COATRACK trivia. Like,

The Beatles' pop song "I Feel Fine" was a No. 1 hit in 1965. It introduced feedback into rock music. The Beach Boys' pop song "Good Vibrations" also hit No. 1 two years later. It was a catalyst for psychedelia and progressive rock.

If we're going to list every top 40 concept album that happened to be influential in any way (i.e. not necessarily because of the fact it was a concept album, but maybe because it pioneered a recording technique that inspired bands to take up a new style completely unrelated to concept albums), the article is going to return to being an unfocused mess.

Please consider just how many records with sizable legacies might be considered "concept albums", from Wish You Were Here and The Fame to The Black Saint and the Sinner Lady, and how much could be written about each of them. By that logic, it follows that we should dedicate several paragraphs in the Rock music article to every single Beatles album. They're definitely important enough for it, but it's discouraged by WP:DETAIL.

There are only a few "Greatest Concept Albums of All-Time"-type lists I could find that don't come from some blog. These are the only works cited as "bests" or "firsts" in lists by NME and Guitar World:

Sgt. Pepper's — "first popular example of a concept record"
S.F. Sorrow — "One of the world’s first rock operas" / "a landmark because it ranks as the first rock opera"
Tommy — "the concept album to top them all."
The Wall — "One of the most famous concept records of them all"
American Idiot — "of this century’s more notable concept albums" / "returned the concept album to the hit parade"

TL;DR: There are countless notable albums with concepts, but only a dozen or so notable concept albums. Does this make sense?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]