Talk:Reveal (R.E.M. album)/GA1

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

Nominator: 22:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright, I'll give this a shot. This is my frist time doing a GA review, so bear with me. Chchcheckit (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Work continues. Chchcheckit (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Just saw this – really appreciate you doing this, thanks! Elephantranges (talk) 01:48, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Still going, a few minor copyedits occured here and there. Article is mainly good, it does cover the main aspects and but requires some copyediting and changes, see below. Chchcheckit (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * @Elephantranges please discuss/make improvements on points below. it is mainly good so far. Chchcheckit (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will take a look at this when I get a chance. Elephantranges (talk) 22:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Copy changes

 * NME review is from 2001 and not 2005, as it has been archived here in June 2001. I suggest tweaking the review to mix with the other contemporaneous reviews
 * I've inserted a use mdy dates template for consistency of date format per WP:DATESPROJ. Text and most references are mdy but some references were not
 * Just looked through the references list and I believe everything is formatted as MDY now. Elephantranges (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Per WP:PAGENUM it is preferrable to use page numbers when citing books where possible.
 * I wanted to see if it would be preferred to have chapters or page numbers for this article specifically - if it's changed so that each page number is cited individually, that would add a lot of clutter to the references list. Elephantranges (talk) 21:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * citations placed below sources per WP:SRF
 * Promotion section is not mentioned in the lead, should be added. (nominator has fixed this)
 * (ignore this)

Sourcing and spot checks
Earwig checks out, all quotes are cited/credited properly. GENERALLY: MOST SOURCES ARE FINE.
 * Relies on singluar Facebook source, which is generally considered an unreliable source per WP:RSPFB. Are there any reliable sources discussing the "Imitation of Life" video/supporting the content you can add? I suggest looking at the "Imitation of Life" page for this, and/or Black 2004 chap 19 (nominator has fixed this)
 * : Original research relying on Billboard chart.(WP:NOR). I suggest using Buckley 2002 and Fletcher 2013 to illustrate the differences in commercial performance of Reveal between the United States and the rest of the world; perhaps this can also be mentioned in the lead? (nominator has fixed OR)
 * Potentially MOS:WEASEL, as it only cites one source. Are there any other sources that support the statement? Would it be better to explain/expand upon the tone of the lyrics
 * So would it also be better to just say "Some publications, including X and Y, described Reveal as more optimistic and upbeat blah blah blah…"? Or some variation of that. Elephantranges (talk) 22:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)


 * note the text amendment: together the BBC and Stereogum references should suffice that point.
 * I think the formatting as it stands presently is fine, but the content needs changing for accuracy. Stereogum doesn't say there's a "contrast" but in terms of the being a mood "melancholy", it and Popmatters (2021) mention it, lyrically and/or visually. or something. the "darker undercurrent" (stereogum based again) is not musical, its thematical; which is why i'm suggesting that the lyrics need to be more clearly defined for what their tone is. stringfellow's quote works but the mood of them is not represented well enough.
 * copyediting is required, not now tho; its 3am and brainfog is hard rn (and you make terrible decisions). sorry if i can't explain myself better, i want this to be good. Chchcheckit (talk) 02:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused at what you mean by having the lyrics be "more clearly defined for what their tone is", and "the mood of them is not represented well enough". Do you mean that the composition section needs to include more information about the lyrics and their meaning than there is at the moment? Elephantranges (talk) 21:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * For example, something like:
 * Stereogum noted a "wistfullness and melancholia" in contrast between its "theoretically bright images", lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, etc.
 * Something like that. I don't think much else needs to be added. Sorry, i struggle to explain how i think. Chchcheckit (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize! Appreciate the help. Will try to get the rest of the changes done today Elephantranges (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, got rid of the one part that needed to be removed, and since there’s already a sentence citing Stereogum’s description of the album I think it’s all set, lemme know what you think. Elephantranges (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright. well, congratulations. 'twas all. Article is passed. Chchcheckit (talk) 22:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)


 * uDiscoverMusic may be considered unreliable. I could not find the song's chart history on Japan's Oricon charts website. Is there another source that supports this claim? (nominator has fixed this)
 * Sales changed from uDiscoverMusic to Buckley 2002

Images

 * Album artwork has appropriate fair use rationale
 * Windmill Lane, Nirvana and William S. Burroughs images are all tagged under appropriate Creative Commons licenses
 * Beach Boys image: although the image is posted without a copyright notice, the source itself, Billboard, has a copyright notice (see here). Source on google also contains watermark stating "Copyrighted material". I'm going to seek a second opinion on this.
 * I will just point out that I got that image from Wikimedia Commons. Not sure if that automatically clears it or not Elephantranges (talk) 01:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * I've been in a similar situation when I had a page reviewed for GA last year. If we go by Hirtle chart, any work published between 1964 and 1977 with a notice is not in the public domain for 95 years: in this case, not until 2066. Per copyright database (here), you can see that this specific issue (November 6, 1971) had its copyright renewed in 2000. Thus it should not be public domain. I'm gonna tag for S.O. now. Chchcheckit (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * sorry for relevance of renewal, see here: "Since a copyright renewal has to be sometime in the 28th year, you'd look for renewals in the records for the original copyright date plus 27 years and the original date plus 28 years. So if the copyright was originally 1941, you'd look at the volumes for 1968 and 1969 to see if there was a renewal." Chchcheckit (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
 * , this GA review is listed as requesting a second opinion, but I don't see anything in the review where you're asking a question for a second editor to respond to. Are you just asking for another reviewer to take over? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * No, it was about whether the beach boys image was not public domain or not. Chchcheckit (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * OK - since it appears you've resolved that I've changed it back to "onreview". Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)