Talk:1980 (album)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 16:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
 * B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * Background
 * It is missing. Considering this is their 6th album together, there is information about it.
 * "Background" sections are not compulsory. And that is presumptive; where does this information exist and what exactly does it discuss? Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice. Presumptive or not, I, as a reader, don't know the reason(s) why this album exists. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You are showing me a guide that concedes it is "a list of possible sections," rather than necessary sections. The music and lyrics sections have some background on their previous work, ideas, etc. The album exists because it was recorded and released. If there is any more information relevant as "background" to this album, it does not exist in the literature. Scott-Heron's career has not been a deeply-covered topic; even AllMusic's skimpy bio has major errors like naming 1978 as the year Jackson left their recording partnership. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The awful stub that existed before your first edit here had a source not present anymore. That means there are more than 16 sources out there. I cited the wording "as a reader I am not reading why the album exists". Therefore, the article fails Point 3a. "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic". © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Did you bother to read the source (Umoji Sasa) you are referring to, Mr. Reviewer? It's an album review, offering more of the same for the themes section (lyrics, song analysis). The source, by the way, is a "campus newspaper". So, yes, you are definitely being presumptive, and lazy; if you are gonna make a big stink about this, you should have your ducks in a row. Dan56 (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Point (a) means that the "main aspects" of the topic, according to reliable sources, should each be "addressed" in the article; it does not require comprehensive coverage of these major aspects, nor any coverage of minor aspects. (What the Good article criteria are not) Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Mistakes to avoid - Requiring the inclusion of information that is not known or addressed by reliable sources. (What the Good article criteria are not) Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If there is more to this album's coming to existence than what is already explained (recording, inspiration behind themes, the label releasing it), then it's out of the scope for this article and its sources. Your feeling--that what is already explained does not sufficiently explain "why the album exists"--is a personal criteria that's irrelevant to good-article reviewing. And if you cannot help from imposing your personal criteria in this review, ask for a second opinion, or recuse yourself, and I will re-open for someone who is better equipped to handle reviewing this article. Dan56 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Themes
 * ""Shut 'Um Down" features an anti-nuclear message" -> From source: " Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever."
 * Are you doubting the "antinuke" reference is to "Shut Um Down"? I've added a ranking from The Nation to the last section ("anti-nuclear songs"). Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am doubting the part where "Shut 'Um Down" is labeled as "anti-nuclear"/"antinuke", when the source does not mention the title of the song. Pitchfork, however, does it. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some intuitiveness is required (there's no other song on the album to touch nuclear power), but whatever; I'll replace the source. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, you were asking readers to accept original thinking once again. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "It is not original research to contextualize a possibly misleading quotation, provided this is done accurately and neutrally." It was accurate. Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just drop it, in itself it is original research. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * "subjects include ... the shah (dead)," -> Is Christgau talking about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
 * The reference could be to Pahlavi but also to the title of "shah", which would have been "dead" (abolished) by the time Christgau's review was published (March 1980); Pahlavi was literally dead a few months later (July). According to the Wikipedia article on Pahlavi: Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "The Shah". Which appears to be reflected in the sources there. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So, the wikilink is original research. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 23:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 * "Accurately contextualizing quotations" is not original research; I also pipe-linked "aliens" to refer to alien (law) (Should this be controversial, too?). But for "the shah," I merely linked the phrase bare, and did not create the redirect myself. You are free to redirect the shah elsewhere if you disagree with admin 's original decision to have the title redirect to Pahlavi's article. Or suggest another idea as to how to handle it. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * From MOS:LINKQUOTE: "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." By "Aliens" Christgau is not talking about spatial creatures, or is he? Also, "I didn't do it" is not a justification, because you decided to link it without verifying where it went or what it meant. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with where it went. I agree that Christgau is referring to "the shah". I agree that "the shah" refers to Pahlavi. If you have a specific question or demand, as a reviewer, I'm all ears. Dan56 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you want to continue giving problems, not solutions, again... Dan56 (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless you are Christgau himself, you cannot speak for him. And Shah has multiple meeanings to believe you are right. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 22:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * to seem retro - they want to move on -> Replace the dash
 * Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Article on hold. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 21:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)