Talk:Hey Venus!/GA2

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


 * "following a request from the band's new record label Rough Trade" you mean they had other label before Rough Trade?
 * Yes but the important part here is that the Rough Trade is their new label - don't agree that this needs changing I'm afraid Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "So we looked at the songs we had, because we're always writing. We kind of chose songs that we could play as a band that would be quite simple to record that we thought was some kind of pop music." I think this part should be trimmed from the quotation and best fits in the second paragraph.
 * Changed this but then reverted - I think it belongs in background as this decision was made before recording commenced Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What I mean is the second paragraph under the same section. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Still think it belongs where it is - there's a difference between wanting to make a 'pop' record and wanting to make a 'loud, abrasive' record.Cavie78 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I reread it, ok now, but Ive done a bit trimming. --Efe (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph, under the background section, is really confusing. It starts with the band wanting a loud record because of the effect of the "slow" songs, then the songs in the setlist became "fast" then "quiet" again.
 * The band played slow songs at initial gigs then statred playing faster songs because of the audience response. This then had an effect when they came to record a new album. The songs didn't become quiet again - Rhys used the quiet tracks he had written for his solo album leaving the faster/louder songs for the Super Furries album. It might not have made sense if you didn't read the quote from Rhys at the end? Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should read well and can stand alone without reading the quotation? Mine is just to clarify stuffs. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Think it's better now Cavie78 (talk) 10:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The first audio sample, I think, passes the NFCC criteria, but the other I think it fail, as seen in the caption.
 * I've changed the captions and both clip 2 and 3 are ok now in my opinion Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then, if captions save audio samples. But be careful in the FAC room. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice you haven't struck this - pretty much every featured album article includes audio samples, either with similar, or much less extensive, captions to explain why a particular song/part of a song has been used. See Doolittle, Be Here Now, Loveless etc.
 * Sorry. I checked and the caption reads better now. It saved the audio sample. --Efe (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Cavie78 (talk) 12:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "while strings were recorded" some don’t get this.
 * Linked 'strings' Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it ok to say "string instruments"? --Efe (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, done. Cavie78 (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "After working with Mario Caldato Jr. on Phantom Power and Love Kraft" would be clear if identified who and what these stuffs are.
 * Done Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not done. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence says "After working with producer Mario Caldato Jr. on Phantom Power and Love Kraft the band "were looking for someone new to work with" as they didn't want to repeat these records" - it says Mario is a producer and links to the article about him and links to the articles about Phantom Power and Love Kraft which are identified as records by the last part of the sentence. Not sure I could clear things up anymore. Cavie78 (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not clearing this stuff but what I was trying to say is that some readers, especially those who are not a fan of this band, would not know what Phantom Power and Love Kraft is. Like you did in this part, "Rhys used his second solo album, Candylion,", its pretty clear what Candylion is without going into that link. --Efe (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done Cavie78 (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "impressed with his work for Broken Social Scene" is this the band's word? Who said this?
 * Have changed to "hearing his work" which is less POV Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "As with Love Kraft Rhys was not the sole writer, with guitarist Huw Bunford writing and singing "Battersea Odyssey" (inspired by Battersea Power Station), and keyboard player Cian Ciaran writing and singing "Carbon Dating"."  "As with Love Kraft, Rhys was not the sole writer of the album; guitarist Huw Bunford wrote "Battersea Odyssey" and keyboard player Cian Ciaran to "Carbon Dating"." I suggest that kind of effect, trying to trim down unnecessary words like singing (you are talking about writing) and parenthetical content which is really irrelevant about the writing of the album
 * Done. I know what you mean about "inspired by Battersea Power Station" but it fits better here than anywhere else. Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "along with 30 other improvised tunes recorded during the Hey Venus! sessions" tunes may refer to a lot of things. In this instance, you mean the music of the songs? Or the song itself (including the lyrics)?
 * Have changed to "songs" Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That image of Newfeld's back really does not passes the NFCC criteria (NFCC#8)
 * Have expanded the description - I think it passes as it further helps understanding of Rhys's comment that Newfeld spet all his time behind the desk during recording.Cavie78 (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Same through with the other non-free image, Im not convinced. The purpose of this is to enhance the reader's understanding on what is being discussed, and showing their back or playing an instrument is rather weak. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See comments in final check section Cavie78 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Some of the songs recorded differ wildly from earlier demo versions…" This paragraph somewhat veers off from the main flow of the idea.
 * Again know what you mean but fits better here than anywhere else Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wildly" is POV.
 * Have changed to Rhys's own words "barely resemble the originals"
 * Who said these instruments are unusual?
 * Have changed so the para just describes the instruments that were used Cavie78 (talk) 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late comments. Really busy these previous days. Im not yet done but I'll put this on hold. I'll drop additional comments soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional comments
 * "because it was there [Miraval studios], and it was more in tune than the pianos". I think you have to add who said this especially that the latter part is an opinion.
 * Good point, done Cavie78 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Remains as is. Don't know why. Haven't checked the history. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It says "which, according to Guto Pryce, was used on a lot of songs "because it was there [Miraval studios], and it was more in tune than the pianos". Cavie78 (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. --Efe (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That image of Bunford fails WP:NFCC#8
 * Have expanded the description Cavie78 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * See comments in final check section Cavie78 (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The band made a conscious decision to keep the number of tracks, and therefore the running time of Hey Venus!, down "because the last three albums have been almost an hour long", indeed, at just over 36 minutes, the album is the shortest full length release by the band." I think there is something wrong with the punctuation and the flow of the sentence?
 * Split sentence Cavie78 (talk) 09:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ”Rhys has claimed to be particularly pleased with "Into the Night" (which "was kind of where my head was at, which is quite a ridiculous place to be") and "Carbon Dating" ("probably the most beautiful song on the record") while Huw Bunford has described the album as "one of [the] best records we've ever made"." This part just pops up from nowhere. The topic just breaks the flow of the whole section.
 * Don't see this as a problem - it's a new paragraph at the end of the section and fits better here than anywhere else. Cavie78 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it does not fit here, its about the recording. Also, Rhys was only particular, not the entire album, although Bunford did. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't fit in 'critical response' and doesn't deserve a section of its own. As I say think it's fine where it is, at the end of talking about recording two of the main participants give their views on the finished product. Cavie78 (talk) 10:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the whole section is not recording, probably, to be general, its production.
 * I think it's better to call the section "recording" which is more generally understood
 * A lot of quotations in the section theme, it could be a copyvio. Those quotations could possibly be paraphrased for brevity, avoiding some unnecessary words that are mentioned in the main text before the quotation comes in.
 * Have trimmed on eof the quotes. They're all from different sources and form a very small part of the original so I don't think there's a copyvio. Direct quotations are needed because the band have contradicted themselves on the concept album issue. Cavie78 (talk) 09:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. Since hey have this contradicting opinions. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "Hey Venus! is notable for being the first Super Furry Animals" Who says it was notable?
 * See source Cavie78 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But you have to give an attribution aside from the source. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the wording to avoid confusion.Cavie78 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Same through with the quotation in the section cover. That could be written along the main text.
 * Suppose it could be but I prefer it as it is - think it's just a case of personal taste.
 * ”After hearing the album the artist came up with something "quite mental" according to Huw Bunford, who went on to state "its amazing what he obviously heard in the music".” I don’t get what its connection with the preceding sentence.
 * I think this is pretty clear - the artist's artwork was "quite mental, it's amazing what he obviously heard in the music" Cavie78 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the table for the release dates has no significance. Is only restates what is mentioned in the paragraphs (aside from the catalogue stuff, although it has on great importance to readers, I think).
 * It includes info on the Japanese release and follows the format of other GA and FA album articles. Cavie78 (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could just mention the Japanese release in the main text? --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the section as it is - table will include other releases when I have solid information and I don't think the prose needs to include details of every release.Cavie78 (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you need to add periods and commas in the section critical response.
 * I've split the first sentence which did seem too long, rest seems ok to me.Cavie78 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it that the pictures are place along the track listing and personnel section? --Efe (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * They're free images there to illustrate the article - seem to fit best there as there's lots of white space on the right hand side. I'm happy to move them if you think they'd fit better somewhere else.Cavie78 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. --Efe (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Final check

This is a very long list and it's hard to navigate so have started this section to clear up any remaining issues. Think the only thing outstanding is the issue of fair use for the two images in the 'Recording' section? I'd say that they are not of a recording session or even another recording session by the band, they are two images of the recording of Hey Venus! itself and, as such, help increase the reader's understanding of the section and there's no free alternative available. There's a similar shot of a cameraman (which doesn't show his face) on The Lord of the Rings (1978 film), which is a featured article.
 * I'll crash out all the stuffs I deem ok. Later. Ty. --Efe (talk) 06:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I struck all addressed concerns. --Efe (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Im still nega about those pictures. Its non-free and WP:NFCC states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." If those images are taken out, if its really significant, it would be detrimental to the reader's understanding. But its actually is not. There's nothing to explain/visualize about this section. There could be, maybe, but these pictures aren't the right one. --Efe (talk) 11:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Final comment
 * I disagree but if you feel strongly enough about it I'll remove the pics before the article passes.Cavie78 (talk) 16:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe I will ask someone who has strong reasoning. I am nega towards those non-free images. --Efe (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Efe asked me to comment here. I don't think the nonfree images in the Recording section add anything to understanding of the recording process of the album. Thus I would remove them. Giggy (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, have removed Cavie78 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I will reread the article, and pass it if there are no more major concerns. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually forgot to review the lead so here are my comments: Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC) By the way, after this, I'll finally decide. The review just went too long. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:21, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional comments
 * I think it’s too detailed if the place where the album was mixed is to be included in the infobox
 * Have removed. Cavie78 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The way the professional reviews are linked are not consistent (for example, the inline citation of Q magazine)
 * I presume you mean in the reviews section of the infobox? Q reviews aren't available online - originally this appeared as something like (Jan 08, p.137) but was changed by another editor during the initial GA review. Cavie78 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the “download only” stuffs in the box are not so important, it’s the dates
 * Ok, have removed. Cavie78 (talk) 13:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "The album was conceived as a "loud" 'pop' record" I cant see why double and single quotation marks are to be used
 * Have used direct quote and removed single quotation marks. Cavie78 (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "both in response to Rough Trade's request for "one of those pop records like you used to make" and as a result of the "very different atmosphere" the band encountered at shows on the Love Kraft tour when the 'slow' songs from that album were played." I think the highlighted parts are so detailed, anyway, its explained in the main text. Also the parenthetical stuffs in the subsequent sentences. These are so detailed.
 * It is explained in the main text but the lead should sumarise that. I don't see including two song titles as being overly detailed - it's the sort of info people might want without having to go looknig for it in the body of the text Cavie78 (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The cover art detail (third paragraph in the lead) is too much. Also, there’s a line there that is too long.
 * There's only one sentence on the cover art and I think it needs to be in the lead as the band's albums and DVDs for the last 10 years have featured art by Pete Fowler.
 * The fourth para is imbalance because you have mentioned two reviewers there. It might mean to other readers that these reviews are more important (giving weight) than other reviews included. Maybe summarize what’s the reaction, or their general reaction.
 * I think I have done - the reviews are chosen as represetative of reaction to the album.Cavie78 (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotations are not ideal for the lead. Also, "the reviews are chosen as represetative" suggests POVness. --Efe (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The reviews section of every album article on Wiki includes reviews which are considered representative of critical reception otherwise we would have to include every single review ever written. Indeed the Wiki Album Project instructs editors to "synthesize the general critical reception of the album". The lead is there to summarise the body of the article and I think the quotes are reprsentative of critical response as a whole if you read the actual reviews section. Cavie78 (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarize what the reviewers felt about this album. If you think those reviews represent the whole view of the other reviewers, then it means they are unanimous. Why not just summarize it in your own words and not use quotes in the lead, to be safe. It tends to be POVic. --Efe (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What if remove the references to the reviewers, just like what you didin the subsequent sentence: "Some reviews, however, pointed out that the album has the "faint whiff of musical conservatism" and "must rank as [the Super Furry Animals'] least adventurous" record." --Efe (talk) 06:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've made some changes - I really hope we can come to a conclusion soon, I put this up for nom in July!!! Cavie78 (talk) 12:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't able to check the internet these previous days. --Efe (talk) 05:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Although there is one unaddressed comment, I'll pass the article because it seems that we're going to consume one month. Also, I'll be out for days, I think, but not sure, and the issue above is not so major, although it should be addressed accordingly. Congrats Cavie and goodluck in bringing this to FAC. --Efe (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for all your hard work Efe - I've made the final change as recommended in the section above. Cavie78 (talk) 21:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)