Talk:Random Access Memories/Archive 1

Troll sites and leaks/posters

A section should be included about the site, daftpunk.tk, the site claiming it had RAM for download, but instead it dl'd 13 tracks of Avicii - Levels. It now pretends to be blocked by the fbi, until the DP logo appears and Levels starts playing. Also, it should be mentioned that posters have appeared everywhere — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.8.96 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we can add something like this to the article, since first of all it's kinda hard to figure where we could fit this into the article; and second and most important, that site does not comply with WP:RS and WP:3PARTY.

PS: Remember to sign your posts with ~~~~ at the end of your comments. Carry on :) ~Sirius¹²⁸ 07:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about the official posters in the article as part of the "Promotion" section. I think the rest of it falls under what Sirius said. jhsounds (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Citing iTunes Store

I don't think that the iTunes Store can be cited as a reliable source. Even though right now it may show the right information about the different release dates of the album throughout the world, that information shown may vary with time and become inaccessible. We should find another source from a third-party that will be available in the future. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 07:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Drmies (talk). Thanks a lot! ~Sirius¹²⁸ 10:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The iTunes Store is a reliable source, though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the problem is editorial: if no information is given but it's cited to a bunch of iTunes links, that serves no further purpose than promotion, in my opinion. I don't oppose the use of such links in general, but there has to be a legitimate reason for them. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 April 2013

Under the Track Listing please change "Track 1" to "Give Life back to Music" (featuring Niles Rodgers), "Track 2" to "The Game of Love", "Track 3" to "Giorgio by Moroder" (featuring Giorgio Moroder), "Track 4" to "Within" (featuring Chilly Gonzales), "Track 5" to "Instant Crush" (featuring Julian Casablancas), "Track 6" to "Lose Yourself to Dance" (featuring Pharrell Williams and Niles Rodgers", "Track 7" to "Touch" (featuring Paul Williams), "Track 8" to "Get Lucky" (featuring Pharrell Williams and Niles Rodgers), "Track 9" to "Beyond", "Track 10" to "Motherhood", "Track 11" to "Fragments of Time" (Todd Edwards), "Track 12" to "Doin' It Right" (featuring Panda Bear) and "Track 13" to "Contact" (featuring DJ Falcon) because the track listing for the album has been released. [1] Sgedris (talk) 04:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Wikipedian. I'm afraid that we are not able to do that, since there is no reliable source that provides such information. All the sites that you may have found are just rumors, and nothing is official. The only official information is that mentioned in the article,, which there are only three confirmed tracks, which are "Get Lucky", "Lose Yourself to Dance" and "Contact". Maybe what the other sites claim to be the truth is actually the truth, but until an official track listing is revealed by a reliable third-party source, we can't do much here. Hang in there! It'll be out soon for sure! Happy editing! ~Sirius¹²⁸ 04:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

We aren't doing it.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Ryulong, I know that you are probably a good editor in Wikipedia with enough experience, but you don't have to be rude with other editors. We all have been there where we don't know very well how to use this enormous encyclopedia. So don't be such a jerk. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 05:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

How is "We aren't doing it" being a jerk? It's blunt but it's not rude.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It's not blunt, its being vague. And that coming across of as intentional can easily be considered rude and jerky attitude. It shows lack of consideration. Also the fact that you dont even leave an opening for discussion shows WP:OWN tendencies. If you dont want editors thinking you're rude or a jerk, than prepared to back up your vague "blunt"ness with elaboration and explanation. Or rather add anything. You couldve said "We arent doing it per the reasons given by Sirius" Its common courtesy as it allows new editors to learn from their mistakes without taking it personally.

As for this case, its best to wait for the release. These type of things can change on last minute.Lucia Black (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The official track names were released through Columbia's Vine account. Incidentally one of the tracks from the previous unreliable source was misspelled. Things like this are why Wikipedia's policies are the way they are. Cheers. jhsounds (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Where is the video Columbia posted?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Track listing

I know that the total length of the album was announced to be 74 min, but who added all the lengths of each individual track? It is not cited anywhere so this might be vandalism, I suppose, and it needs to be removed until the titles and lengths are announced, unless someone possesses a reliable source where this information is available. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 07:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the source for the individual track lengths was the iTunes Store, which I guess brings us back to the initial concern stated in the above topic, "Citing iTunes Store". jhsounds (talk) 08:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What the hell. It's not vandalism. The track times come from looking up the PPL Repertoire Database where all of the tracks were registered through the International Standard Recording Code. PPL = licensing for playing any recorded music in public. Search for Daft Punk here and click page 11 ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 03:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that even if this is true we can't cite this site either as it seems to be in part restricted, so it fails in WP:V. I think that the best thing we can do for now is to wait for an official track listing from a reliable source to be announced. Don't worry, it may be out very soon! ;) ~Sirius¹²⁸ 04:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

What's restricted with the source? That I can't link directly to the tracks? ♫ Douglasr007 (talk) 04:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

About the track names, the site http://www.10kya.com does not seems to be a reliable source, so stop adding the track names from that source. We shall wait until an official track listing is revealed at some site like the Rolling Stone which totally complies with the Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm sure it won't be long for that to happen. So be patient everyone! :) ~Sirius¹²⁸ 01:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, it seems that an official track listing has been revealed through many web cites. Although some of them claim that it's not confirmed to be official, just a bunch of rumors... But I guess the site Do Androids Dance seems to be a reliable source, so we can be confident that it is truly the official track listing for the album. All that is left is to add somewhere in the article about the date it was revealed. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 02:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Do Androids Dance is not a reliable source. The source they use is to this other website which also does not appear to be a reliable source, and they cite this Rolling Stone interview that does not mention the tracks outside of "Get Lucky" and "Contact". I've removed this track listing until actual reliable sources can be found.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:06, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This isn't exactly a BLP, but then again, there is no reason to use unreliable sources to cite things that may or may not be correct. Better to not have that information in the first place. Or, what's the point of listing unreliable track information as long as there's no tracks? What are we trying to do, beat everyone else to it? Removing the track listing is just good editing. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Before the list of collaborators was released, the tracklist was out stating collaborations, with exactly the people who were revealed to be collaborating on the album at Coachella. Before names of tracks like "Contact", "Give Life Back To Music" and "Lose Yourself To Dance" were mentioned in interviews, the tracklist had been posted with tracks of those names. It seems pretty clear that the tracklist is in fact correct, not just rumoured, so surely we can add it, if we can find a place to reference that complies with the Wikipedia rules Celldwellerwannabe (talk) 09:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It needs to be confirmed by reliable sources. Not corroborated by a bunch of rumor mills.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand that, you don't have to be so blunt about it. Its just that these so called "rumour mills" were right about the collaborators and the track names we have confirmed, and if they are looked through by someone who knows their stuff about Wiki rulings on wether we can cite them as sources, im sure at least one of them will be citeable. Everything that is coming out about the album that could be discerned from that tracklist is exactly as it has been released. It makes sense that it must be correct Celldwellerwannabe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It does not matter if they were right or not. They are not considered reliable sources.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done Finally, an official track listing has been revealed, and our reliable source is this one. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 05:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Use of "Daft Life"

There seems to be some confusion on the use of "Daft Life Limited" in the article. Up until recently it was referred to as the production company behind all of Daft Punk's studio albums (the Homework liner notes mention "Daft Trax" which may have been a early name). This source [2] also seems to call it a production company. With the announcement of Random Access Memories, Daft Life is suddenly being called an "imprint" or label by news outlets. Right now the inclusion of Daft Life as a label in the infobox and prose contradicts what is currently established in the previous wiki articles that mention it. With seemingly no definitive explanation for this new "imprint" qualification, I would prefer to keep things consistent. jhsounds (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Things can change. Maybe they made the production company now also a label. Their last album was released on Virgin Records. iTunes specifically stated that the album is released by "Daft Life, under exclusive licence to Columbia Records". "Under exclusive license" is a distribution deal. Not sure what "keeping things consistent" has to do with anything?  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

In addition to Billboard, Pitchfork states "It's out May 21 via Daft Life Limited, an imprint of Columbia Records." The Music Network states this as well.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The line "Daft Life, under exclusive licence to [name of record label]" has been used in the liner notes of all the previous Daft Punk albums. It could very well be that Daft Life suddenly became a label, but it's equally possible that the press kits for the new album were misinterpreted and its still a production company. As I said, there's no source that definitely confirms this one way or the other. jhsounds (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The press release you provided doesn't say it's a production company, actually, it says "Daft Life Ltd is the producer of Daft Punk material". I just provided several sources stating the label is an imprint of Columbia.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The Collaborators series

About The Collaborators series, I'm getting a response from an user that either Dubstep.net nor DoAndroidsDance.com are reliable sources; I completely understand. But I don't considerate a smart move to just cite YouTube. I know that it is reliable, since it's the same video that Daft Punk is directly uploading. But the problem here is that, if for some reason, the videos are removed in the future (I'm talking about some five or ten years in the future), there will be absolutely no reference about what the promotion of the album was like. For example, the third episode with Nile Rodgers, the website that is cited is Rolling Stone, so in case the video is removed, there will still be information about what the video used to talk about. That is why I'm encouraging all of you, happy editors, to cite from a third-party, reliable, good source that will be there whenever you want to consult it. So let's find (or wait for) those sources. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 04:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it unlikely that the videos for the official Daft Punk website are ever going to be taken down. You can use both sources if necessary, but if it's just an embed on another website why bother?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've added all of the current four episodes from Rolling Stone which also have the video from YouTube. What do you think of that? ~Sirius¹²⁸ 08:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sirius, stop adding the Rolling Stone links to the article and completely sidelining the original postings on YouTube. There is nothing in the summary from Rolling Stone that cannot be understood from watching the YouTube videos. They should be the source we are using. Not Rolling Stone's summaries.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:15, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I already told you the reason why I'm doing it. There is a chance that these videos might be removed with time. I'm talking about some five or ten years from now, you never know. It happens frequently with bands, like their websites that are completely changed and renewed when they're about to release a new recording. And if that happens, at least there will be some prove of what the videos talked about with those references. So let's just leave both of them. It doesn't hurt to keep two sources as a back-up, and the video is also available in the Rolling Stone's sources. So calm down and let's just leave it that way. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 23:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not need both. The YouTube ones are the official and direct from the band so we should use them over the Rolling Stones ones. If you're going to add them back to the article at least do not make the YouTube links a second set of references that you are not using throughout the entire article. You've just been making the Rolling Stones links the main citations for this information and treating the YouTube ones as second class for no reason I can discern.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pictures in the Article

First of all, I think it's awesome to have these pictures in the article, they make it look more complete. But I think that instead of using the current pictures of Nile Rodgers and Pharrell Williams, it would be better to use some pictures that are more related to the making of the album, like some video stills from The Collaborators. I can take them but I'm not really good at uploading them. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 00:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Free images are usually preferred over non-free ones in wiki articles. Pictures from The Collaborators might work if an appropriate fair use rationale can be provided (see WP:FU). Good luck. jhsounds (talk) 00:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the two pictures aforementioned, and I'm thinking of maybe uploading a picture of the third teaser that appeared in the Coachella Festival, using the one that appears in the same episode of The Collaborators used. ~Sirius¹²⁸ 03:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the rationales for those two new images do not explain why they are non-replaceable, i.e. the fields simply say "n.a." These fields are particularly crucial since free images of Nile Rodgers and Pharrell Williams were already available. jhsounds (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, those aren't valid fair use images. They were not critically cited as being important. They're just two random screencaps you decided to take that have no educational purpose. We have a free image of Rodgers playing guitar and we have free images of Williams, so the non-free versions from the videos are replacable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Panda Bear collaboration

I just wanted to clarify a point regarding recent posts to the article. The collaborators video featuring Panda Bear does not say that he recorded drum parts for the album. Lennox says that microphones were set up in the studio for "my voice" and that they asked him to "do something good". I'm not sure how it was surmised that he made a beat for the album, especially since other sources including a Daft Punk interview specifically mention Lennox's voice. jhsounds (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I could swear the collaborators video had him playing drums.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Electro classification

In the source where Giorgio says the album is funk, he also mentions electro. Could we call the album electro, or with the organic instruments is it too risky? --24.107.207.98 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It defiantly classifies as electronic, I don't think electro though. That subgenre is pretty unique. However, I think we could argue that it shouldn't be disco and instead nu-disco. --75.182.32.249 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Why Nu-Disco, no? Electronic Jazz? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.18.154.108 (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Japan release date

I think the Japanese release date should be added because of the extra track. 86.46.55.239 (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Horizon - Bonus track

I'm not sure if this is a trustworthy source, but the Japanese bonus track has been released and is called Horizon. http://betherave.com/daft-punk-bonus-track-horizon-only-in-japan/ Limbero (talk) 23:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The bonus track is already mentioned in the article, in the track listing. jhsounds (talk) 23:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Sections about charts

I noticed the "Chart performance" section was split off into separate main headings: "Charts", "Certifications" and "Chart performance". On top of this, a new "See also" section was created solely to include a link to a list of number-one albums in Ireland. This makes for a total of four main sections, all related to the same topic (i.e. charts). This is an excessive amount of main headings, which makes the table of contents difficult to navigate. The explanation for this excessive undue weight on charts was that it follows WP:ALBUM and WP:MOS, which are not policy and should not be followed blindly in this case. jhsounds (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Nu-Disco?

Why not? 75.157.7.21 (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Art Rock?

Some of the songs classify under the art rock category, and in fact there is sometimes a strong resemblance to music from The Alan Parsons Project. Art rock may contain jazz or classical elements and is experimental. Some critics have suggested that the album is somewhat progressive, though the music isn't exactly progressive in nature nor are there any sudden changes, as one critic noted. Art rock is related, though doesn't necessarily possess a progressive nature. Thoughts? Vuzor (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Information for "Horizon"

The Personnel section does not attribute any of the session musicians to track 14 ("Horizon"). Unless the Japanese liner notes either don't include the information for "Horizon" or Daft Punk are the only ones listed in the writing and instrument credits for the song, someone needs to update the section (and possibly the Track listing section as well). I also think that the Structure section should be updated to include "Horizon," since all of the other tracks are included.

71.237.139.71 (talk) 19:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I went ahead and added the "Horizon" credits. jhsounds (talk) 11:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible update to Collaborators section

Would it be necessary to mention that there was no Collaborators video for Julian Casablancas?

94.174.169.18 (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Generally an encyclopedia article should describe what something is and what occurred, rather than what something isn't and what hasn't happened. If there's a citable source stating that a Julian video had been initially planned, then that would work. jhsounds (talk) 20:16, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Random Access Memories

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Random Access Memories's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BPI":

• From Daft Punk discography: "Certified Awards Search" (To access, enter the search parameter "Daft Punk"). British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved September 24, 2012.
• From Rumours: "Certified Awards Search". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 23 April 2012. Note: User search required.
• From List of music recording certifications: "The BPI". British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved 2008-06-02.
• From Michael Jackson: "BPI Searchable database—Gold and Platinum". British Phonographic Industry.
• From Pharrell Williams discography: "BPI Certified Awards Search" (insert "Pharrell Williams" into the "Search" box, and then select "Go"). British Phonographic Industry. Retrieved March 2, 2012.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Commercial performance Denmark

In the section Commmercial performance there is a list of countries where the album debuted as number one

The album debuted at number one in several countries across continental Europe, including Austria,[108] Belgium,[109] Czech Republic,[110] Denmark (where the album sold 5,392 copies in its first week),[111] Finland,[112] Germany,[113] Ireland,[114] Italy,[115] Norway,[116] Portugal,[117] Spain[118] and Switzerland.[119]

Why does it say the amount of albums sold in Denmark in the first week? Is this unusually high or unusually low?

I think it should either be clarified why this is specifically interesting or removed. --87.212.241.171 (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Length and wordiness

I'm concerned the whole page is too long and detailed, especially 'structure' and 'collaborators'. Thoughts? (Ntomlin (talk) 05:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)).

Why would extra details be a problem? If someone is interested in this album enough to come to this page, then what else would they expect to find other than what we have here? I bet lots of other album pages would love to have this amount of detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.174.152.170 (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This article almost takes longer to read and digest than it takes to listen to the album. Needs to be trimmed badly and the stilted, lofty language taken out. Keep it simple so a 5th grader can understand it. As it is, the article reads like a literary journal for those with an MFA. The article can still adequately inform without sounding pompous. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:52, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries aren't generally supposed to be read from beginning to ended like chapters in a novel, but I get what you mean. Now that we have articles on specific songs of the album, we can safely trim out details and have the song articles carry the bulk of the information. jhsounds (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thriller imagery

Hi, I noticed someone uploaded fan images of the members of Daft Punk in poses similar to Michael Jackson on his Thriller album. The fan images are not official, and obviously do not fit the criteria for fair use rationale for album artwork (i.e. the images aren't from the RAM album). The source isn't even accurate, as the fan images just cite a forum and not the person who actually made the parody images. jhsounds (talk) 15:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've corrected the image sources noted in here and here. Just so we're clear, the two images were made by cincozeta using Photoshop. The user posted them on a Daft Punk fan message board, and someone else re-posted them on Reddit. After that point, the images spread virally across the internet and were mistaken as official Daft Punk cover art. I hope this clarifies the issue. jhsounds (talk) 10:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Random Access Memories/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sasuke Sarutobi (talk · contribs) 08:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello! I shall be reviewing this page as my second GA review, with the support of Khazar, who is showing me the ropes. I am a long-time fan of Daft Punk - I have been listening to the album all this morning to get into it - so I hope I can do it justice.

I've already had a quick read through the history of revisions and the talk page, but will be spending the next couple of days looking over the page, and aim to post a review within about 2-3 days. Thank you in advance to all the contributors on this article for creating what is on first impression a very good article, with what I think is a good chance to move quickly to A-class or Featured Article review if it passes Good Article review. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 08:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking forward to it--thanks to everybody here for their work. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:18, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that external pressures have meant that I've not been able to spend as much time as I was planning, so there are still a few things I need to check before I'm in a position to post a comprehensive review of the article, which I'll be going through over the next couple of days. Everything I've seen has been promising; going through the history and talk page, I can definitely see the commitment of the contributors to the article, with any debate being clearly focussed on improving the article's quality, so thank you again.

As an aside, I've been listening to the album whenever I have the chance (as I write this, 'Touch' has just started playing), and have fallen in love with it all over again, so you can rest assured that the article has a sympathetic ear. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I've had an unusually hectic few days, so although I've been keeping an eye on the progress of the article, I've not been able to fully check through what has been done. I have some notes prepared already, but I'll be going through the article tomorrow evening (GMT), after which I'll be consulting with Khazar2 (talk · contribs) on the final review of the article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The below is the present position of my review, but I'm about a third of the way through a "deep read" of the article, and have a few further checks to make before I complete the review. The sections not yet marked are those that I will complete following this, the others I am comfortable providing after a relatively quicker check. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   The 'Structure' section needs clarification as to whether the 'd' in de Homem-Christo's surname is capitalised at the start of a sentence, as it appears in both upper and lower cases within adjacent paragraphs.

    Done - Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The above all check out to me.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   In-line citations and references are provided.

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   'The track begins with an orchestral string section and timpani before settling into a segment that is said to resemble Michael McDonald's song "I Keep Forgettin'".' — said by whom? This does not appear in citations at the end of the following sentence.

   '... was later identified as "We Ride Tonight" by The Sherbs.' — Do we have a citation for this? I've heard the song, and it is indisputable, but I still feel that it needs citing.

    Done - Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   A couple of uncited statements are present (see above).

    Done - Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Attention has been paid to the album from its conception to its release, as well as critical and commercial reception, and includes referenced track listing (including Japanese bonus track) and personnel.

   B. Focused:

   The article remains focussed throughout on the subject of the album, with all information relevant to the subject.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   All opinions expressed in the article are cited and those of contributors or professional critics; all other comments are presented in an appropriately encyclopaedic tone.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   There appears to be some contention over the choice of genres for the album. This ideally could do with settling on an agreed list.

    Done Now appears to be settled on a stable list. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Album cover is tagged for fair use, and other images are tagged for free use.

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images are of the album cover, two locations at which the album was recorded, and artists who collaborated on the album.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Everything raised here has now been addressed, so I am passing this. Thank you to all involved for your hard work! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I've now completed an initial review, though there are a few things that I am continuing to check through (e.g. copyvio sneaking in, or accuracy of sources). I would suggest a few further additions for potentially FA review, but I honestly cannot see anything besides the above in which I feel it needs elaboration, so congratulations and thank you all for a great piece of work. @Khazar2: what do you think? — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 01:38, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Will give it a read tomorrow--looking forward to it, Khazar2 (talk) 01:41, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding point #2, I went ahead and cited the liner notes for the Sherbs sample (when that info had first been added to the article, the album had not been released yet). As for the "I Keep Forgettin" part, the Mixmag review citation states that the song "sounds a lot like the sample used in Nate Dogg and Warren G’s ‘Regulate’" which happens to be "I Keep Forgettin". I'm sure there's a way to convey this in a more elegant manner, though. jhsounds (talk) 02:08, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a minor update - I tackled the "I Keep Forgettin" part to make it clear who and what is being cited. jhsounds (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Khazar2 comments

This looks basically solid to me; thanks to everybody involved in getting this recent release to a high-quality article already. I've made some copyediting and clarity tweaks as I went, but please feel free to revert anything with which you disagree. Here are the remaining issues that I see, most of which will need to be addressed in some fashion before the article is GA-ready:

• "Random Access Memories is the duo's most critically and commercially successful album to date," -- this doesn't appear to be mentioned in the body. It's well established that the album was hugely successful on both fronts, but no sources comparing the previous albums that I saw. (unless I overlooked it?) So this big statement both needs citation, and needs to be established in the body per WP:LEAD.

To qualify critical success, Metacritic does list the album as their highest-rated by metascore on their artist page. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that would work. Presumably another source could be found for commercial figures. Do we have any active participants in the review still? -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm still here (submitted some copy-editing on the article this morning after reading through last night), and I've seen @Jhsounds last copy-edited some info on the new single a few days a ago, so things are progressing, albeit more slowly than I would prefer. I will be putting work into the article again in a few hours, so things should be coming to a conclusion within the next few days. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Ideally you shouldn't have to do too much work here yourself as reviewer, but this is an odd situation with the driveby nominator. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done, sort of. I added the Metacritic info indicating it's the Daft Punk album that has been their greatest critical success but I can find no sources to corroborate a claim of "bestselling". Should we just remove that claim?

• "The multitude of styles and science fiction aesthetics on the track is believed to be an homage to musical films" -- I've fixed a few of these already, but there's problems with weasely phrasing in several sentences in this section; one critic does not equal a general belief. It would be better to just say that "Joe Critic believed that the multitude of styles was..."  Done Seems to have been dealt with before I got here.
• "that is said to resemble Michael McDonald's song "I Keep Forgettin'"." -- this one is particularly problematic as it's followed by two citations, neither of which appear to mention McDonald at first glance.  Done Found an RS that referenced the song as the sample in the context of the song.
• " "Contact" begins with a sample of "an Australian rock record"[1] that was later identified as "We Ride Tonight" by The Sherbs" -- couldn't we just say, "'Contact' begins with a sample of "We Ride Tonight" by The Sherbs"? It seems trivial to mention that the sample wasn't named in an early discussion with Rolling Stone.  Done Seems to have been done by the time I got here.
• "Consisting of eight episodes so far," -- this should be fixed in time per WP:REALTIME (e.g., "As of November 2013, eight episodes have been released"). Or is it safe to say that the series is done?  Done Seems safe to me.
• "took note of a perceptively incongruous critical reaction with the album" -- I'm not clear what this sentence means, specifically how something can be "perceptively incongruous", and why this says "with the album" instead of "to the album". Can this wording be clarified?  Done Cropped several lines from the review, including these, to give due weight.
• It seems like the reviewer for Paste gets a surprising amount of space (6-7 sentences) compared to established publications like Rolling Stone (1 sentence). I would suggest trimming the summary of this review to just a point or two for balance, unless there's a reason I'm overlooking that he deserves particular attention from us.  Done Trimmed out the confusing bit from above, shortened to explicit critique of the album.
• "as well as the fastest-selling album of 2013 so far" -- "so far" should be replaced with the current date, assuming this still holds true. Or replace with the date of the source ("as of...")  Done Clarified that it's been the fastest selling artist album of the year as of two days ago (source included) because apparently Now That's What I Call Music! 85 (which is a compilation album) has it beat by some 160,000 units in the first-week sales department. Who knew?

Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

*The nominator has had mostly failed GA nominations, because they're usually far from ready. I'll try to see what I can do for him here. 和DITOREtails 16:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC) You know what, I've been just busy, so I'll let the review keep going and suggest that somebody else take over. 和DITOREtails 23:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, this doesn't seem like to much of a task so I'll give it a shot. The big ol' "done" checkmarks are mine...feel free to contest them if you don't think I've actually done what you're looking for. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 03:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion of review

Looking through the above, it would seem that thanks to the @Khazar2's comments and work, and the work of @Jhsounds and @Bobamnertiopsis, I think all of the above points have been addressed. About the only thing I haven't cleared as addressed yet is the issue of the genres listed; I think the list that we have ("Disco, electronic, funk") seems pretty fair as stable, but I want to check consensus and see if we are agreed that the review is complete. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both jhsounds and Bob for stepping in on this one. I think the sales part of "Random Access Memories is the duo's most critically and commercially successful album to date" still needs sourcing; surely this is true but we do need to verify it somewhere (and in any case, important info shouldn't be in the lead without being in the body.) Once that's resolved or removed, I think this is ready to pass. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I've done some looking and I'm not sure this is even the case now. The critical part is fine, but I have trouble with the commercial aspect. The ideal situation would be to have one source comparing worldwide sales of all Daft Punk's albums on a single page; this I cannot find. Next best might be four separate pages, each listing one of the duo's four albums and citing its worldwide sales; this too remains elusive as I've only found an RS for worldwide sales of their first album, Homework. Now, Daft Punk discography lists a worldwide number of RAM but it's not sourced but I did find a Sony press release suggesting that album sales were "almost 3 million". That said, a likely unreliable source put forth the idea that Daft Punk's second album, Discovery, sold 3.2 million copies. At this point, I'm not really comfortable saying that this is their most commercially successful album and that phrase should probably be removed. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 01:58, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the 'commercial' part of the statement now; if a reliable source turns up later to support the statement, it can always be added then. If there are no further objections, I think the article is ready to pass. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Almost. It just needs sources for the new Accolades section mentioning all the Grammy nominations it's just received. BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 00:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done I've added references and a table of nominations (including "Get Lucky", as it's the lead single from the album). Let me know what you think. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it looks great, though ultimately, you're the reviewer so your word goes! @Khazar2, are you happy with it? BobAmnertiopsis∴_ChatMe! 21:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Khazar has since retired. Quadell offered assistance with the review following Khazar's departure, so I've left a request for a second opinion. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the issues you raised were very appropriate, and I'm pleased to see that they were all dealt with. I don't see any remaining problems, so feel free to promote this to GA status, Sasuke Sarutobi! (If you need any technical assistance, feel free to ask me.) – Quadell ^(talk) 23:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, done! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Instant Crush & Doin' it Right

Instant Crush and Doin' it Right both charted in multiple countries, too. Shouldn't they have pages? --24.107.207.98 (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Doin' It Right now has its own article. jhsounds (talk) 20:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Is Instant Crush going to have it's own page, too? It also charted although it was not released as a single. --24.107.207.98 (talk) 13:41, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You can always start the Instant Crush article yourself, using the Article Wizard if you wish, or add a formal request for it. jhsounds (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just so we're all updated, the "Instant Crush" article has been created. jhsounds (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)