Talk:Until the Quiet Comes

Unnecessary
This article is stuffed with incredibly detailed, yet highly unnecessary, information. Just compare it with the articles of Los Angeles, Cosmogramma, and 1983. This article is so clearly written by one person it is almost laughable. The article is incredibly convoluted and obviously written from a biased perspective. Is "rave" really the right adjective for the reviews this LP received? Does there really need to be an entire section devoted to describing each song in extreme detail? Why would anyone need to know what Thundercat's bass was plugged into? What I am saying will probably have no effect on the article, but it should be written from a more neutral standpoint and should definitely be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perceptualpsychology (talk • contribs)  9:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Duly noted.
 * Although I dont see how it's relevant how many people wrote or researched the article/topic. And its scope/comprehensiveness dont have anything to do with neutrality.
 * Yes, "rave" is the adjective used by the source cited in the article.
 * There is a style guide on article body content at MOS:ALBUM that you can review to see what in particular doesnt belong here.
 * I'm not sure why you would compare this article to a bunch of stub articles?, when I used the same approach here as I did at The Way I See It, Rhythm Killers, and Sons of Soul to make them featured articles. I'll settle for GA with this one though. Dan56 (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)