Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II/GA1

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

Nominator: (now 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs)) 16:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 18:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

 * The article only sources Marc Weidenbaum's 33&1/3 book once. Although this is not FAC, material from that book could surely be used a LOT more here.
 * Limited pages can be previewed here – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Zmbro, I will go to the library to check the book out, however I'm not sure that they use Rock's Backpages. — Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 21:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I got Rock's Backpages so you don't need to worry about that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)


 * The release date is currently sourced by a primary source. A secondary source should at least also be included. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ref 17 is a blog dedicated to James and is therefore unreliable.  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * refs 12 and 18 seem to be the same thing ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea if ref 42 is reliable. Based on their about us I would say no but it might be helpful to ask WP:ALBUMS. Smells like cryptocurrency spirit.  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This might not be something you can answer but at the very top, it states ""SAW II" redirects here. For the film, see Saw II." And over at Saw II there's actually a "For the Aphex Twin album, see Selected Ambient Works Volume II." I have no idea if this was decided on long ago but maybe it would be beneficial to find a source or something else that says this record is also known as SAW II? Clearly at some point in time there was a reason that warranted these tags on both articles, but does it still warrant it now? Just pondering. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This Pitchfork source (already cited in the article) actually uses the SAW II name frequently, so you might be able to use that. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

General notes
 * "Selected Ambient Works Volume II had a mixed reception from critics on release," this is the only time the term "mixed reviews" is used to describe the album  Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 22:50, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Once again, the lead does little to describe the record's actual importance in terms of ambient music. Yeah it's listed on best-of lists, but why? Get my drift? ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 11:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * James's move from R&S Records to Warp Records was touched on in the 85-92 article but there's no mention of that here. Or maybe that information belongs on Surfing on Sine Waves since that was his first release on Warp. ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Currently zero recording information in the article (as of this revision)
 * What do you mean by "recording information"? Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly what it says. When/how/where did James record the album? The record didn't appear out of thin air one day. 85-92 has both when it was recorded and the type of equipment James used. The same is to be expected here. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reception sections will need reworking (more on that later)
 * Similar to the last GAN, some publications don't include authors in prose (i.e. "Rolling Stone described..."). Make sure we're consistent. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 21:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Simon Reynolds seemed to be really fond of this record, as he is sourced in five different references. He also (apparently) reviewed this record twice back in 1994: once for Spin (currently sourced) and another for Melody Maker. It might be beneficial to cite both so I can work on that. ❌ I don't have the issue. Davest3r08 > : 3  (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Nevermind, I'll look for it. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 13:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Like with 85–92 I'll check Newspapers.com as I'm sure that will have a bunch of helpful stuff.

That's all for now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Continued comments That's all for now. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As of this revision, the lead looks better, although the lack of a source with a direct quotation is a problem. Also, this quote is not attributed and to me isn't that important to be in the lead. Furthermore, one person saying this doesn't mean that's how the record itself is viewed by everyone. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * refs 23 & 57 are the exact same thing ✅ 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 17:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Going along with that, I think the page could still use more info from Weidenbaum's book
 * I was thinking about this the other day: none of the album's (aside from "Blue Calx") are actually named (the article correctly notes this on both CD and streaming. The titles that are currently listed under track listing were adapted from a fan (Greg Eden). The source states: "Not only did Eden's titles become canonical for referring to specific tracks—his are the ones that load from the Gracenote CDDB when you rip a SAW II CD—but he later went to work for Warp, which has released James' most iconic work." I'm wondering if, instead of listing Eden's titles as the actual titles, we should change it to how they originally appeared on CD (Untitled 1, Untitled 2, etc.) and maybe put Eden's titles in parentheses next to it? I'm wondering what your thoughts are, because to me, using fan titles that "became canonical" doesn't sit right in an encyclopedic setting.
 * Yeah... that's where some issues start to kick in... The AllMusic entry uses what seem to be the fan titles,, and the Spotify and Bandcamp releases use the #1-#23 titles.  Do I just use the #1-#23 tracklist? 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I honestly think we should change it to the numbers only as the official titles (as they technically don't). But I think the "canonical" titles are still beneficial to have. Like I said above, I think we should put those titles in parentheses (using note in the tracklist template) then clarify that in prose above the table. That way we have both but it still displays that none of the tracks had actual titles when the album originally came out. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:40, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In Release: "though the master was made from a US CD copy (see tracklist for details)" remove (see tracklist for details), very improper 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get the refs out of the infobox (similar to this edit I made on 85-92). It's not required I'm just a proponent of that.
 * The main problem with "retrospective reviews" is that it lacks a substantial amount of exactly that: retrospective reviews. All of the prose that calls it one of the best albums of the 90s is here when it should be in legacy and influence; there's even a quote that states "influencing everyone from Radiohead to Timbaland". I advise move all of these to legacy ala 85-92. ✅ ❌ Apparently it's common for album articles to do this? 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The wording of "stature has grown considerably in subsequent years" in the lead is technically WP:OR because it is not mentioned anywhere else (and reception doesn't really support that argument either). 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 16:36, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, make sure you look at what's currently sourced and what's not. Multiple times you've added sources that are already on the page separately that I've then had to ask you to remove or have removed myself. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to fail this nom. There are too many issues with the article that cannot be resolved in a reasonable amount of time. 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok. If you think that is what's best. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 17:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)