Talk:Northern Lites/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: J Milburn (talk) 13:01, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a shame you've had to wait so long for this review. Not my kind of music, but the name rings a vague bell.
Resolved
|
---|
|
- It isn't Mojo or Q, it's the reviewers, writing for the publications. Same with the newspapers, and so on.
- I would disagree, the reviews are thought of as being the opinion of the magazine not just the writer. This is how the magazines themselves refer to reviews and how pretty much every book I've read talks about critical reaction. Occasionally reviewers names will be mentioned if they are well known (Lester Bangs, Nick Kent etc.) but even then the opinion is that of the magazine the review appeared in.
- Huh. It just seems slightly ridiculous to me- you wouldn't write (using the book closest to me) "Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Ireland describes the species as inedible" you would say "Roger Phillips describes the species as inedible". J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest I would say the former but that's another story! When albums are released they frequently have stickers on with reviews - they never give the name of the reviewer though, only the magazine the review came from. We also have review templates which only have fields for publications not reviewers. Cavie78 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The style just doesn't come across as very professional. Sure, for tables listing ratings or something, it works to just name the publication, but ignoring the people behind the articles just doesn't seem like something a serious publication would do (admittedly, I haven't really read any academic works on pop music, but I've read plenty on other subjects). I've written two featured articles on albums and two on musicians, and all four referred to authors over publications, as do my other articles, as would any piece of work I was submitting academically. It's just better form. J Milburn (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I say it is standard practice across the board in music publications, from newspapers to magazines to serious scholarly works See examples here, here, here and here In the last example The Guardian mentions reviews in several magazines, and one of the newspaper's own reviews, yet only mentions Charles Shaar Murray by name. Cavie78 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The Guardian is neither an encyclopedia nor an academic work, both of which Wikipedia hopes to be. If we're to come across as a professional, academic encyclopedia, it would be nice if we could start writing like one. J Milburn (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- As I say it is standard practice across the board in music publications, from newspapers to magazines to serious scholarly works See examples here, here, here and here In the last example The Guardian mentions reviews in several magazines, and one of the newspaper's own reviews, yet only mentions Charles Shaar Murray by name. Cavie78 (talk) 15:48, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- The style just doesn't come across as very professional. Sure, for tables listing ratings or something, it works to just name the publication, but ignoring the people behind the articles just doesn't seem like something a serious publication would do (admittedly, I haven't really read any academic works on pop music, but I've read plenty on other subjects). I've written two featured articles on albums and two on musicians, and all four referred to authors over publications, as do my other articles, as would any piece of work I was submitting academically. It's just better form. J Milburn (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- To be honest I would say the former but that's another story! When albums are released they frequently have stickers on with reviews - they never give the name of the reviewer though, only the magazine the review came from. We also have review templates which only have fields for publications not reviewers. Cavie78 (talk) 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
- Huh. It just seems slightly ridiculous to me- you wouldn't write (using the book closest to me) "Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Ireland describes the species as inedible" you would say "Roger Phillips describes the species as inedible". J Milburn (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would disagree, the reviews are thought of as being the opinion of the magazine not just the writer. This is how the magazines themselves refer to reviews and how pretty much every book I've read talks about critical reaction. Occasionally reviewers names will be mentioned if they are well known (Lester Bangs, Nick Kent etc.) but even then the opinion is that of the magazine the review appeared in.
→*From the first books that I picked up from my bookshelf:
- White Heat: A History of Britain in the Swinging Sixties / Dominic Sandbrook p.413 (Discussing Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band) "The The Times Literary Supplement described the lyrics as a 'barometer for our times'; the New York Review of Books hailed a 'new and Golden Renaissance of Song'; and the American magazine Newsweek called it 'The Beatles' Waste Land', after the poem by T.S. Eliot."
- Exile on Main St. / Bill Janovitz p.85 (Discussing the song "Tumbling Dice") "The Melody Maker review of "Tumbling Dice" articulated the significance of the song's release, via the band itself, noting, 'It is impossible to see their names on the label and not undergo inner convulsions in which joy, mirth, tears [...]"
- The Man Called Cash / Steve Turner p.253 (Discussing American Recordings) Rolling Stone called it "unquestionably one of his best albums." Billboard gushed "never has the man in black produced a work of such brilliance [...]"
- I don't really know what more I can say! Cavie78 (talk) 02:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you so violently opposed to attributing these opinions to the people who wrote them? J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you so violently opposed to leaving it as it is? I've provided you with plenty of examples of this form of attribution. If you would rather write that way in articles you contribute to then that's fine but I would rather not - it adds unnecessary detail. Cavie78 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm opposed so strongly because this comes across as a poor academic style- if someone submitted an essay written like that to an academic publication or institution, they would be shot right down. Your belief that this "adds unnecessary detail" is hardly proportional to the strength by which you try to defend it. As for the view that stating the author of a directly quoted view is "unnecessary detail", well... J Milburn (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you so violently opposed to leaving it as it is? I've provided you with plenty of examples of this form of attribution. If you would rather write that way in articles you contribute to then that's fine but I would rather not - it adds unnecessary detail. Cavie78 (talk) 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
- Why are you so violently opposed to attributing these opinions to the people who wrote them? J Milburn (talk) 11:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
→I have given you plenty of examples to show you that this style is considered perfectly acceptable when discussing music reviews. Can we just get this out of the way? I don't see how this last remaining point has anything to do with WP:WIAGA. Cavie78 (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- The GA criteria require that articles are well written, and this is not a particularly professional style, and they require that the article is neutral, which entails an appropriate encyclopedic tone. I will say now that I strongly doubt an article written like this would pass FAC, and, while GAC has lower requirements, I think there's something a little ridiculous about you actively refusing to fix an issue. I am going to request a second opinion on this issue. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- GA criteria state that "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I'm sorry but I don't see how you can say the article fails to achieve any of these things. The 'Neutral' criteria states that an article should "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias." and, again, I don't see how you can claim this article fails to do that. I don't want to 'fix' the issue as I don't think there is anything to fix. I have been studying music for over twenty years and, as I have told you more than once, this is an acceptable style. I have provided you with examples and tried to be civil while you have used words like "ridiculous", called my writing "poor", claimed I am somehow "violently opposed" to your suggestion by simply providing you with reasons why I disagree and added snide phrases such as "If we're to come across as a professional, academic encyclopedia, it would be nice if we could start writing like one." Disagreements are inevitable on Wikipedia but I think it might be worth considering that, just because an editor disagrees with you, this does not mean they are a) wrong and b) an idiot. Cavie78 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to derail a nomination by accusing me of incivility will get you nowhere; my comments have been about the style of the article and its text. When you submit an article to a review process, sorry, but you've got to expect that. My criticism has been constructive, you just haven't liked it. Further, playing the experience card isn't going to do much; I've also been reading and writing academic texts for years, and, on Wikipedia, have written four featured articles on the subject of music alone. Our basic dispute seems to come down to whether this article should use a standard academic style (though, your comment above dated 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC) perhaps implies you disagree that this is a standard academic style? If you want to go down that road...), or whether this article/this article's subject matter is an exception to the rule, meaning that stating the author of a view is "unnecessary detail". As I say, I have asked for a third opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to "derail a nomination" (whatever that is meant to mean), I am merely pointing out that a) this isn't a GA issue and b) you should try and be more civil. Cavie78 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Trying to derail a nomination by accusing me of incivility will get you nowhere; my comments have been about the style of the article and its text. When you submit an article to a review process, sorry, but you've got to expect that. My criticism has been constructive, you just haven't liked it. Further, playing the experience card isn't going to do much; I've also been reading and writing academic texts for years, and, on Wikipedia, have written four featured articles on the subject of music alone. Our basic dispute seems to come down to whether this article should use a standard academic style (though, your comment above dated 01:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC) perhaps implies you disagree that this is a standard academic style? If you want to go down that road...), or whether this article/this article's subject matter is an exception to the rule, meaning that stating the author of a view is "unnecessary detail". As I say, I have asked for a third opinion on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- GA criteria state that "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation." I'm sorry but I don't see how you can say the article fails to achieve any of these things. The 'Neutral' criteria states that an article should "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias." and, again, I don't see how you can claim this article fails to do that. I don't want to 'fix' the issue as I don't think there is anything to fix. I have been studying music for over twenty years and, as I have told you more than once, this is an acceptable style. I have provided you with examples and tried to be civil while you have used words like "ridiculous", called my writing "poor", claimed I am somehow "violently opposed" to your suggestion by simply providing you with reasons why I disagree and added snide phrases such as "If we're to come across as a professional, academic encyclopedia, it would be nice if we could start writing like one." Disagreements are inevitable on Wikipedia but I think it might be worth considering that, just because an editor disagrees with you, this does not mean they are a) wrong and b) an idiot. Cavie78 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Third opinion - In my experience it is best to attribute opinions to the author directly in the text. Opinions inherently come from people. It may be that a publication's policy is to defend the reviews it has published in its publication but the opinions come from the author. For examples, see anyone of the book-articles I've done (on my userpage, like The World Without Us#Reception). Sometimes it is an independent person who contracted-out a review to the publication (not an employee of the publication, 'John Doe writing in x magazine writes that...'), and sometimes it is an magazine staff reporter ('Jane Doe of x magazine writes that...'). It isn't possible in every instance (and it isn't a hard-and-fast rule) because some publications do not identify the author and sometimes it does make more sense (like 'NME gave it 3 stars' or 'NME named it one of its Singles of th Year). Incidently, I do not agree with JMilburn's Mushrooms and Other Fungi of Great Britain and Ireland example above, but that is getting off-topic. maclean (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- Granted, but in those cases, it would perhaps be best to say "Writers for Magazine" or something. A magazine can't have an opinion. J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of the writers are notable enough to have their own articles on here - the only reason the things they have written are included is because they appear in notable publications/websites. Cavie78 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- Firstly, you're wrong, they're included because they are considered reliable (reliability does not mean notability, and notability does not mean reliability). Secondly, so what? I've explained why your style is poor academic form, and the other two people who have expressed an opinion agree with me. It makes no sense to attribute opinions to publications. I'm pretty much sick of this; if you're not going to fix it, then I'm done, and I will fail the article because of the poor writing style (1a) which threatens the neutrality of the article because of the inappropriate tone (4). If you are going to fix it, please fix it. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
- None of the writers are notable enough to have their own articles on here - the only reason the things they have written are included is because they appear in notable publications/websites. Cavie78 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
→It would be entirely inappropriate to fail the article for these reasons. Even if I agreed with you about the correct way to attribute reviews in a music article, Good Article criteria 1a states "the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct" it says nothing about "academic style". Is the prose clear and concise? Yes. Is the spelling and grammar correct? Yes. Good Article criteria 4 states that an article should "represent viewpoints fairly and without bias" How am I being unfair or showing bias? You say that "the neutrality of article is threatened" but I don't see how this can possibly be the case. I aren't pushing one opinion over another and I give both good and bad reviews of the single. As I've tried to explain, and as I've illustrated with examples from both magazines, newspapers and books, this an accepted style when writing about music. The examples I have given include the work of professional journalists, music journalists and a historian who was formally a lecturer at Oxford University. Cavie78 (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- You're wikilawyering. An encyclopedic tone is important, and articles which do not have it should not be good articles. The fact that this specific issue is not mentioned in the criteria does not mean you can do what you like. In any case, this has been discussed, and the consensus is fairly clear. Do you really think I can promote an article which uses a style which a discussion concluded was not appropriate? Alternatively, I can fix it myself, then fail it for instability when you revert? I'm not interested in playing the lawyer game. Wikipedia articles should be written, firstly, in an academic style, and secondly, as consensus dictates. If an article is not written in these ways, it should not be promoted to good article status, regardless of the exact "word of law". J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right, you haven't edited the article in nearly two weeks, and haven't edited this page for the best part of two weeks. The article has been waiting long enough- please make the change, or the article will be failed. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've provided you with examples of this sort of writing from scholarly publications on music and shown that this sort of change isn't required anyway by GA. You've managed to sap all my enthusiasm for Wikipedia which no doubt doesn't bother you in the slightest. I have no interest in the kind of petty arguments you seem to revel in so have decided to take semi-retirement. Although I can't imagine you will listen I would advise that you try and be more civil in future communication with other Wikipedians. Cavie78 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I was not in any way uncivil. Wikipedia aims to follow academic standards, and, though we do not agree on what these standards are, the consensus from this discussion is clear. If the ideal of a consensus driven project are not for you, then, sorry, but there's not a lot I can do to help you. As you know, I am now going to fail the article for the reasons I outlined. In attempting to maintain standards, I certainly do not aim to offend, and I really don't think that anything I said was improper. J Milburn (talk) 14:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I've provided you with examples of this sort of writing from scholarly publications on music and shown that this sort of change isn't required anyway by GA. You've managed to sap all my enthusiasm for Wikipedia which no doubt doesn't bother you in the slightest. I have no interest in the kind of petty arguments you seem to revel in so have decided to take semi-retirement. Although I can't imagine you will listen I would advise that you try and be more civil in future communication with other Wikipedians. Cavie78 (talk) 14:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Right, you haven't edited the article in nearly two weeks, and haven't edited this page for the best part of two weeks. The article has been waiting long enough- please make the change, or the article will be failed. J Milburn (talk) 17:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Resolved
|
---|
I'll look at the rest a little later, nipping away for a few minutes now. J Milburn (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
→:I can see we're you're coming from but to me the inclusion of a screenshot from the video is just as valid as the use of the coverart. I could describe that in prose, it's from the physical medium the song was released on, it is not the song itself, yet it is universally recognised that cover art is ok in the infobox (in fact it is even required by Wikiproject:Songs for singles) A music video is an important part of the promotion of the single, and a screenshot (that is one frame of a video I hasten to add) gives a far better idea of the look and style than prose could ever hope to do. The video will have been shown on Mtv and other music channels, chart shows etc. and readers may primarily recognise the song from the visuals if they haven't heard it for a long time (it happens to me a lot) I think the alleged WP:NFCC#1 fail is just plain silly, NFCC#8 is more understandable but I fail to see how a screenshot of a music video in a section specifically about that music video in an article about the song that music video is for could be considered mere decoration. Cavie78 (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
|
Hope this helps. I'm placing the article on hold for now.
- Thanks for the review, I'll try and address your concerns later today. Cavie78 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it is best to attribute opinions to the writers, in the style; "Joe Bloggs, writing in Practical Orchestra, said "Blah...blah...blah" Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)