Talk:Virtual Self (EP)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 04:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It's great to see some Porter Robinson noms; I couldn't help myself! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Well-written
I quite like the article's structure and balance. I especially like the short paragraphs and, specifically, the general "Concept and inspiration" info which then goes deeper into the production and visuals. I did a copyedit, and I'm left with only a few comments:
 * "an alias with its visuals" and "sound inspired by early 2000s" could be construed as different ideas, perhaps: "an alias whose visuals and sound were inspired by the early 2000s".
 * The above point might be moot because of this: Robinson's inspiration of early 2000s aesthetics is mentioned three times in the lead in similar ways. I think "an alias whose visuals and sound were inspired by the early 2000s" is redundant considering the sentence afterwards.
 * Reworded
 * melodic-based — remove "based" or say, perhaps: "his 2012 song 'Language' featured a more melodic sound".
 * Done
 * something for him to resist — this feels too indirect, like someone else is making him resist his old sound, perhaps: "something he tried to resist".
 * Done
 * to release something similar to a follow-up album — he described Virtual Self as a follow-up so I would reword this as: "to release a similar follow-up album".
 * Done
 * However, he still needed to gather dynamic graphics — the "However" feels odd, is this really a contrasting phrase? It feels more constrictive.
 * Reworded
 * he still needed — when put this way, it is unclear whether he did this or not.
 * Reworded
 * He then directly referenced — to who, the video artists?
 * Reworded
 * A music video was released, containing cryptic messages. — a music video of which song?
 * "Eon Break". Fixed.
 * "Released" is used a lot in the "Promotion and release" section, you could do something like: "On January 11 that year, a music video for "Particle Arts" was released, alongside one for 'Ghost Voices' on February 28 and one for 'Key' on April 18."
 * That is really nice. Done.
 * said the Virtual Self alias was a "high concept musical nerdiness" — this is a descriptor rather than a noun. You could say something along the lines of: "described the Virtual Self project as 'high concept musical nerdiness'".
 * Done

Verifiable with no original research
In terms of the use of secondary sources for which TechnoSquirrel quickfailed the article, I'm gonna steal the words of voorts, I agree with you in part. Of course, if good secondary sources could be used for the "Concept and inspiration" section, then I would encourage that, as I did in my review of Corey Olsen, where we rewrote and referenced most of the "Academic career" section. However, this is a different case. The vast majority of material about the EP's production only exists in interviews. And I don't have many issues with reliability, as the article only uses these for his opinion. But still, I respect TechnoSquirrel's commitment to quality sourcing, and I think his suggestions have been very helpful to the "Background" section.

For copyvio, the quotes are sharp and paraphrasing is used well. Earwig shows a good score of 36% (the first URL was a copypaste of the article, no issues). And to go into detail about reliability, although iFlyer and Hypebeast are questionable, they're basically 10% interview questions and 90% answers. The Forbes piece is written by a contributer, but it's only cited once and for Robinson's statements. Dancing Astronaut is not the pinnacle of quality, but its use is uncontroversial, mainly for the date of the tweet. However:
 * I would replace the DJ Mag Asia source with this EDM.com source, it's still not great, but it's a little better (and still, it's an uncontroversial claim).

Yeah the Dancing Astronaut one is a source I wouldn't like to use; in fact, I've asked WP:RSP about electronic music sources, including EDM.com and Dancing Astronaut, and the result wasn't great. Indeed, its use was just for the date of the tweet, since the Billboard source was pubished much later, though I could add the Billboard one alongside the tweet itself. DJ Mag Asia is a branch of DJ Mag, so I assumed it would be reliable, but they aren't the same magazine, so possibly not. So honestly, I don't think DJ Mag Asia or EDM.com are good. For now I will add the EDM.com source alongside the DJ Mag Asia one; however, I plan to go to FAC in the future, so I might need to remove them if FAC reviewers don't find them reliable enough. Skyshifter  talk  20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Good idea: I imagine the tweet would be fine as a primary source. And I'm not sure how I missed DJ Mag Asia being a branch, forgive me! (Admittedly, it seemed like a blog at a glance, and I haven't found a mention of the parent company.) I believe it's enough for GA, but yeah, it might need some consideration for FAC. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've added the tweet, replacing Dancing Astronaut, and removed the EDM.com source, as I believe DJ Mag Asia is superior for being a branch of DJ Mag. Skyshifter   talk  21:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

 * Wow, looks good
 * Looks good as well
 * Looks good
 * Just genre stuff, but looks good
 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * Just genre stuff, but looks good
 * Looks good
 * Looks good
 * Looks good

Broad in its coverage
I've done a search for sources, and I'm quite confident that the article adresses all the major aspects.

Neutral
No issues on this front.

Stable
No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated
All images are relevant, the comparison of the Pathselector and Technic-Angel songs is clever. The first tour image is correctly labeled as Creative Commons, while the DDR and second tour image are own works. The album cover and sound samples have satisfactory fair use rationales (the samples are fine for the EP article, at least).

Summary
A lovely article once again! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for all the compliments throughout the review :) (and your copyedits!) Everything has been responded to! Skyshifter   talk  20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Amid the sourcing comments, I am happy to pass this article! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Skyshifter   talk  21:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)