Talk:The Life of Pablo/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thatoneweirdwikier (talk · contribs) 15:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Overall, a pretty good article, but citations need to be added in the lead before good article status can be achieved. Nothing new, just reuse the ones needed. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC) Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , But citations are not needed in the introduction as long as the claims are sourced within the article body, right? --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Even if it is, it’s worth putting them in, should another     similar query come up. Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, that's not how this works. The overwhelming consensus is that citations are not usually necessary in the lead: "Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material," per MOS:LEAD.  danny music editor  oops 16:45, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Transclusion should be used for this GA review as is commonly done; see Talk:Amazing (Kanye West song) as an example of how to do so, do you agree? Also, when transcluded, cut this comment and the above ones to the review for obvious reasons. --Kyle Peake (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think the transclusion has been fixed. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 17:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agreed with DannyMusicEditor, sources are not needed in the lead because the content is already in the article body. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Right then, sounds like we are go for GA status. Well done! Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 18:42, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Were all the criteria checked?
Generally, when I see no comments at all—no typos found, no missing punctuation, no grammatical errors noted of any kind—I worry that the review has not been sufficiently complete. In this case, the 1b portion of the well-written criteria has not been ticked, and it turns out that the article does not follow MOS:LEADLENGTH (part of the MoS lead criteria) with the lead at five paragraphs, which is almost invariably seen as too long. Looking at the lead text, I ran across this phrase: Following the official streaming debut, West continued to make changes to The Life of Pablo and declared the end of it as a dominant release form—what does "the end of it as a dominant release form" even mean? GA criteria say the prose should be "clear and concise", but this wording is neither. It's the sort of thing a reviewer should point out and have fixed. Thatoneweirdwikier, I'd like to suggest that you reopen this review and dive into it more deeply; as a first-time reviewer, you might even request a mentor on the WT:GAN page to help you with what to look for. Indeed, with only about 35 edits at Wikipedia before you started the review, I would strongly recommend that you gain a great deal more experience as an editor before reviewing at such a high level. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The issues are not major, so is it fair to not going through a GA reassessment as fixes aren't hard to complete or point out, even? --Kyle Peake (talk) 05:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’ve changed the wording of the phrase you mentioned. As for the lead length (and I apologise if this is something I haven’t read up on), could we just summarise the last four paragraphs into one?Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agreed with you on this. The review was done a little too quick, I think having a more experience editor should have review the article, I have nothing against Thatoneweirdwikier but the editor haven't been around enough to understand how this works. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:25, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kyle Peake, reviews can be reopened if it's felt they were closed prematurely, and simply continue on. Not a reassessment, but a continuing assessment. Indeed, this is very much the preferred thing to do, if the reviewer is amenable. I've just taken a very quick look at the lead, and it's a long article; there's a good chance there are more issues to be addressed. Thatoneweirdwikier, I don't think your rewrite helped with the explanation, which is only marginally clearer, and of course the analogous text in the body of the article still has a similar wording, which I also feel is unclear. Perhaps you could let Kyle Peake do the edits—as a general rule, the reviewer points out problems and the nominator makes the fixes. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * BlueMoonset Sounds good. I suppose I’ll leave you to it, Kyle Peake! Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 07:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the lead, look good now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kyle Peake, the problematic phrase still remains. And it's even more problematic now that I've taken the time to read the source for it, since I now understand that it isn't talking about the end of The Life of Pablo album (if it is an "album"), but the end of the "album" as the dominant form of releasing music. The problem is that even if Kanye has said that explicitly, it isn't in that particular source that I can see, and such a mammoth claim needs to be unambiguously supported. (The lede calls it the "seventh studio album", which seems to contradict this assertion.)
 * So there are still issues that need to be dealt with, and the changes in the prose made with the latest edits did not help matters (I've cleaned those up). Mostly, it's very clear that the review was incomplete in a number of ways, including checking the sourcing. At this point, if Thatoneweirdwikier is not willing to reopen the review, it looks like a reassessment is the only way to go, since an adequate assessment has yet to be made. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate as I obviously worked very hard on this and will be happy fixing any issues risen, hopefully the user will reopen the review; let's just give it an adequate amount of time before going to a reassessment, in all fairness. --Kyle Peake (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I’d love to reopen this review as I definitely feel that I’ve missed some key aspects, but I think that it would be better for someone else to take my place. BlueMoonset, would you be comfortable in reviewing the article? Thatoneweirdwikier (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Moonset is usually the one who oversees the entire nominations project. I don't know if they have time, but we'll wait and see.  danny music editor  oops 16:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Per Thatoneweirdwikier, I have reopened the review both here and on the article talk page. I unfortunately do not have the time to take on a review of this magnitude—45K prose characters and 230 source citations take a great deal of time to examine, even if only a spot check is done of the latter. If there's someone else here who would like to take this on, let me know; otherwise, I could ask for a 2nd opinion and see if it brings in someone who would be willing to do a full review. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Review has been reopened
New review comments should go here when a new reviewer takes this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh man this is long. Review will come in stages, Merry Christmas. Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Responded to your current batch of queries, can't wait to see the rest and merry xmas for yesterday! --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:14, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Style

 * Lead may be a little long, but fine at the moment, I feel - the lead couldn't get longer unless the article did.
 * Background could be tweaked (phrasing) for improvement, but meets criteria
 * Could the Background section be renamed 'Background and development', perhaps, or even 'Background, development, and release' - this is what it covers
 * What is the sentence West's recording in Los Angeles was rumored to be at Shangri-La Studios, Rick Rubin, one of the executive producers of West's sixth studio album Yeezus (2013). meant to say?
 * I've changed an instance of "West's" to "West is" - per MOS, most contractions (not in quotations) should be expanded.
 * The sentence He explained West's level of freedom, stating "When he wants you to work to a blueprint, the blueprint is: 'Don't make a rap beat. Anything but a rap beat.'" is also really unclear.
 * There's no need to quote Fauntleroy. It's a ramble with no detail and several instances of profanity - there's nothing against profanity, but since it adds nothing, why have it unnecessarily? Just say he did some recording in the early stages and at this time expected there would be other collaborations.
 * A lot of the long quotes seem pointless, honestly. Could you explain how I'm trying to get it finished. I'm trying to get it to the people... Release dates is played out. So the surprise is going to be a surprise. There go the surprise... [It's] cookout music that just feels good. My last album was protest music. I was like, 'I'm going to take my ball and go home. supposedly explains what West meant by 80% completed? 80% completed is quite clear, that quote is largely unrelated and seems to have been mined enough it's nearly nonsense.
 * Direct quotes don't need to be used unless they add something to the article beyond original prose or say something that the prose just can't convey as well. Most of the quotations do not serve that purpose, and it would be much better if the info was taken and written out in your own prose - the number of quotations becomes excessive, and they read as quite jarring because of how they are simply introduced (i.e. 'X said Y', rather than flowing with the paragraph).
 * If you don't want to rewrite into original prose, I guess that the Post Malone quote seems alright, because it contains a fair amount of relevant information that isn't otherwise included.
 * ✅ for the former, look alright?
 * Musical style paragraph one is a lucky dip of critic quotes that could be expanded out, to make reading and understanding easier.
 * ❌ as then the article would fail copyvio
 * not expand the quotes, get rid or reduce the quotes and expand on what is being said overall. Entire paragraphs constructed by 'X said Y' just isn't good style.Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The musical description isn't simply facts, so the writing needs to be attributed to the critics. Unless you mean still say X said Y but decreased the number of quotes?
 * Yes, reduce the number of direct quotations - attribute it, but write their views in your owns words where possible. Quotations can be useful, but a list of them instead of clear prose is not so useful. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs work
 * Responded to everything, pass on this aspect now?
 * Just the bit on quotes. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The musical description isn't simply facts, so the writing needs to be attributed to the critics. Unless you mean still say X said Y but decreased the number of quotes?
 * Yes, reduce the number of direct quotations - attribute it, but write their views in your owns words where possible. Quotations can be useful, but a list of them instead of clear prose is not so useful. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Needs work
 * Responded to everything, pass on this aspect now?
 * Just the bit on quotes. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Just the bit on quotes. Kingsif (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Coverage

 * Lead fine
 * Background section also covers development and release - could be renamed or broken up?
 * ✅ but renamed to background and development as the release is mentioned further in its own section and the info of here is about the background/release relevance
 * The second paragraph of Musical style mixes different parts of the pseudo-gospel aspect: the musical (which belongs), and the theoretical (which is more on concept and belongs in a development section)
 * Needs work
 * Needs work

Illustration

 * Fair use album cover - the file says 'alternate', is this not the most common cover?
 * It says that because the cover was initially different but was ultimately changed to this
 * infobox looks good, if a bit producer-heavy (studios are collapsed, could the non-exec producers get that perhaps?)
 * ❌ I don't know how to collapse non-exec producers but not exec, tell me how please?
 * Use the collapsible list template, but not around the exec producers, I assume. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of that. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:49, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Free images of relevant people spread in the early sections
 * Fair use track sample for 'Ultralight Beam' with decent rationale
 * Not sure about the rationale for 'Real Friends', do we need audio evidence of Ty Dolla Sign?
 * ❌ as he provides additional vocals on the chorus and throughout the song so is def of relevance
 * He may be relevant, but what about this warrants using a non-free song clip? That's the issue. Kingsif (talk) 22:33, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should I remove the clip then?
 * I don't know the musical significance, so I'll leave it up to you, but what does the clip explicitly demonstrate that is of note and can't be written? Kingsif (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The song's position on the album, combined with the meaning of it and the additional vocals, which are notable with the clip as it is one of the promo singles. Understand now?
 * Free image of biblical figures, but I'm not sure this needs to be there - the prose mention is half a sentence, and I think we can assume that most people know what 'Mary and Joseph' is referring to without an image. In addition, with no fixed cultural image of them, it's not definitively illustrative.
 * Nice commons image of the tour, not sure why it's in the Lawsuit sub-section
 * ✅ but can't put it too low as the overlapping will be heavy with the following section from tour sub-section
 * Tables in the lower part of the article all look good
 * Needs attention
 * Tables in the lower part of the article all look good
 * Needs attention

Neutrality

 * When reading, it does feel like the article likes West. I think this comes from some perhaps careless phrasings that may not directly be violating NPOV, but which are using wikivoice and an informal tone to present positive views of him. One of these is [he adds] that when it comes to creative freedom, no one is on the same level as [West] - someone said that, and it is attributed, but the way it is written is not a completely neutral encyclopedic tone. In this instance, rephrasing to say something like 'he also believes that West is on his own level in terms of creative freedom', or whatever is more accurate. A read-through to fix similar issues may help.
 * West received some criticism for constantly updating the album after its release, which isn't reflected in the subsection on this; the section includes only views that support it.
 * ✅ pass on this aspect now?
 * Needs attention
 * Needs attention

Verifiability

 * Add ref to the end of all sentences that have direct quotations in, and anywhere a claim that could be challenged appears. I've found some parts where this isn't happening.
 * ✅ for all, pass on this aspect now?
 * Needs attention

Stability

 * History is not too stable, but The Amazing Peanuts seems to have a tight hold on keeping a stable version.
 * A few big disputes on talk page, but nothing since 2017.
 * Pass but keep an eye on it Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright

 * Check looks clean, song titles and heavy quoting only things brought up.
 * Fair use album cover in infobox
 * All other images commons and seem correctly tagged.
 * Pass Kingsif (talk) 02:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Overall

 * on hold Kingsif (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Few sub-sections questioned on whether they should be passed or not? Also got a couple of questions about what work I should do elsewhere that you can see above. --Kyle Peake (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It looks good - responded to the last two queries and I think that's it - I'll give it another read through :) Kingsif (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There are multiple sections in which I have asked if the aspect can be passed now that have left unanswered, I guess your above comment means they are passed...? Also, can you help me with the gospel content organization like I asked about? --Kyle Peake (talk) 07:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, if you say it's done, I believe you. I'll give it a read but consider all the aspects tentatively passed. Re. the gospel parts - that paragraph isn't completely focused on explaining the musical style, it just seems to have collected every mention of 'gospel' in relation to the album. So Vain's EW review statement isn't really about it being gospel, but Reiff and Hyden's quotes do mention how it is or isn't gospel music, even if they don't describe the music or explain why. The Big Boy Radio quote is mostly about the development, but 'the gospel according to Ye' is kind of about the musical style. Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fixed but kept a shortened version of Vein's quote, pass now? --Kyle Peake (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Symbol support vote.svg Fair, it could improve, but I think it's good enough for GA. Kingsif (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
 * To elaborate, because the in-depth comments stopped around the Musical style section (I was going to give more in-depth comments, but Kyle was pressuring for a pass and the later sections are generally well-written, only featuring the same kind of issues with quotes and tone that were widely resolved when I made that comment earlier), the others are good enough too. The Lyrics and themes section is particularly well-written, while the Critical reception could also become more prose and less quotation. Kingsif (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)