Talk:Laborintus II (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. I may be a little rusty at reviewing though. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

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.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
	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.	Fine
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Fine
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Fine
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yep
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	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.	Fine
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Fine
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1

Is this in BrE or AmE? You've mixed the two.
Intended to be BrE as most involved are European (Patton is the only American out of all of them), but I'm not sure where outside of quotes I've used AmE spelling; I'm probably too used to forcing myself to use it here to notice it when I don't want it. :P GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Date formats — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I didn't really think they were hard-and-fast like spellings were; Month Day, Year is generally how I'd format dates here in Ireland too. I can change them if you'd like, though. GRAPPLE X 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Cool. WP:STRONGNAT doesn't state it explicitly, but it's implied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could just be my own STRONGNAT showing through... :P GRAPPLE X 00:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We can leave it as is for now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
free jazz elements - What's this mean? Link free jazz maybe?
Done. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Overall grammar is quite good, but there are issues below. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction: Lede says Eliot and Pound were brought in through the original poem, while the body says Sanguineti's poem is used in addition to Eliot and Pound
You're quite right, that was my mistake. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
CN tags
Got them. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Members of the Dutch choir Nederlands Kamerkoor have also cited usury as a key theme in the piece, describing the composition as "an indictment against the practice". - Shouldn't this be near your first use of usury?
Moved. GRAPPLE X 23:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

3

Awfully short, gonna look for some more sources shortly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the following?

Spin magazine (not very quotable, I know)

You know, I looked at that earlier but I had thought I'd already used it. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic (Ezra Pound? Really?)

Aye, there's a bibliography in the liner notes that mentions Pound and Eliot without specifying what was used or how (though I am a reader it's not really my field of expertise). I've added a few sentences from this source. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks a bit better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never thought to look for a dead man's website (naive, I know). Good catch. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Choir's website

I think what that's saying is that the choir had previously performed the piece elsewhere and re-used elements of the previous performance visually during the live show that this was recorded from; am I right and is that worth adding? GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it, yes. A couple interesting statements about the themes too (an indictment of usury, for example) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Combing through it again now to pull that out; I'll see how to source both the site and its translation at once as well. GRAPPLE X 00:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This look alright? GRAPPLE X 19:06, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And a whole bunch of minor review sites which may or may not be worth citing.

This gives Part 1, 2 and 3 for the track titles
Hmm. The album itself gives no titles at all, so I'd be inclined to treat "Part 1", etc, as descriptions rather than actual titles; especially when AllRovi specifies "Untitled". GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might be worth noting, as Sputnik uses the same scheme — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For scope, a bit more about the composition would be nice. I've provided a couple links above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:58, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I.e. the actual work — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for such a quick review (figured I should shake the dust off with something I had already worked up a bit before I got back into the swing of things). Hope I've addressed some of what you're after, though if you could point out any non-quote uses of AmE that I've missed I'll come at them with dog poo and knives. GRAPPLE X 00:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once you've got those last few grammar comments (and I'm on a more stable connection) I'll give you a spot check. This may be FAC-able... E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial isn't much longer — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Might stick it in for a PR soon then. I'm a bit unsure of the title, as technically this isn't the primary topic for that title (Berio's work is, rather than this album), but the primary topic doesn't exist yet. How do we handle that, just keep a future move in mind? GRAPPLE X 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

Based on this revision

1

a: Not in source given. Source says the themes are Dantesque, but not that they are the main theme's in Dante's works (i.e. source says Dante had such themes, not that they were the most common)
Reworded, how's it look now? GRAPPLE X 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
b: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
c: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.

2

a: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
b: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
c: Doesn't have the label here.
d: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
e: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.

5

a: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
b: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.

9

a: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
b: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
c: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.

13

a: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
b: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.
c: Fine, matches. No close paraphrasing.

Just realised, you don't have the language of the album stated explicitly. You can cite it to the AV-club, which also has a little bit of information about the individual tracks and the actual sound of the album; Sputnikmusic has more too.

In short: couple of close paraphrasing issues, article would benefit from information about the album's sound — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm misreading something; where are the issues with paraphrasing? I'm also not sure what you mean by sound——the musical genre (free jazz, etc) or the sort of waffle-y descriptions (it's like Monteverdi, some passages "stand alone", etc)? I could work either in more. Have added the language and a nota bene on the track titles (though I'm not keen on its placement, but nothing else seemed to work within that template). Will gladly add more about the sound when I'm sure which aspect you mean. GRAPPLE X 02:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the paraphrasing that's the issue, but some of the facts aren't in the sources you've linked. As for the sound, I note that there are descriptions of the songs / text and whatnot. Patton mixes Italian with a little English, there are shrill sopranos, stuff like that: what we'd expect to hear if we listen to the album. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:47, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I get you. Have added a section, let me know how you think it reads. I'll hunt out another free image for it as now there's some extra room. GRAPPLE X 03:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, awesome. I think it reads well (have delinked Italian and English, per WP:OVERLINK). Only remaining issue is the new image File:Luciano Berio.jpg, which may not be PD in the US and thus shouldn't really be on Wikipedia or Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugger. Have replaced him with Dante (by way of Giotto). This article's getting a little strange. GRAPPLE X 06:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How so? That image's definitely fine. Ready to pass, but curious about your statement — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently includes pictures of Dante Alighieri and Mike Patton, with links to Miles Davis, Ezra Pound, Claudio Monteverdi and Raymond Scott. And it's only about half an hour of music, too. :P GRAPPLE X 06:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guess the work itself is a little strange, eh? I'll promote this to the tune of "It's a Small World" — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]