Wikipedia:Peer review/Album covers of Blue Note Records/archive1

Album covers of Blue Note Records


Hi everybody! I've recently created this article to better document the visual artwork of Blue Note Records, an American record label that was prominent in the jazz scene in the 20th century for its music and iconic album covers. I'm hoping to get this listed at FAC sometime after I receive the book that's listed in the "Further reading" section in the coming week or two, but in the meantime, I'm looking for comments on how I can improve the article as it stands currently. Grill me on citations, wording, or any other faux pas that I may have made.

Thanks, Joeyquism (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith
Overall, I really like this article. It's well written and tells a story.
 * You have a lot of non-free images. That's fine, but expect that their provenance will be examined closely at FAC so make sure you've got that done right.  I'm not an expert at image licensing, so my recommendation is to seek out somebody who is an expert to look at this before FAC.
 * I'll see if I can get someone in the Discord server to look over this for me. If you're aware of anyone who is particularly good at these kinds of things, please let me know.
 * I see you've already got this listed for DYK. After that's done, I would also run it through WP:GA.  The more eyes you can get on this before FAC, the better.
 * Will do. I'm in no rush for FAC (right now, at least). After I get my book and decide whether or not it belongs in the sources section or on my coffee table, I'll push for a GAN.
 * I have seen reviewers at FAC take objection to how you've broken up the sources into Books, Articles, etc. I don't know where it says you can't do that, but don't be surprised if somebody objects to it here. struck after asking about this on WT:FAC.
 * I noticed this style being used on Mike Tyson's tattoos, which I found when looking for articles to base the structure of this one on. If considerable pushback arises, I can change it quite easily.
 * Looking over the sources quickly, they all like like WP:RS
 * Thank you for the feedback!
 * Be consistent about using numerals or words for record sizes. You have 10-inch but twelve-inch.  See MOS:NUMNOTES: Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently.  I would think all all figures would match common usage, so that's probably the way to go.  I'd also use convert the first time each size is introduced.
 * Both have been done.
 * I really like the excellent MOS:ALT texts you've provided!
 * You'll also have to thank ChatGPT for those, lol. I think they're a bit verbose so I may trim some of it down, but regardless, thank you! I did a lot of computer accessibility work when I was a student and alt text is something I find very important. If you personally believe that ChatGPT shouldn't be allowed or is looked down upon for these types of things (though WP:AI and WP:AICLEAN don't seem to mind responsible usages - I would argue provision of alt text with human verification is a responsible use of AI tools, which is what I did here), please let me know and I'll rewrite them by hand.
 * Oh, that's interesting. I'm not sure how folks at FAC will react to that.  You might want to see my comments at the end of this thread and the response to it.
 * There's some general agreement on the Discord that it's okay if AI-generated texts are used as a starting point or are verified by a human for accuracy. Perhaps I'll take a shot at rewriting them by myself.
 * I don't disagree with you. Just don't be shocked if not everybody at FAC is going on the same page.
 * Understood.
 * My personal preference (and I know this is not universally the case among reviewers) is to keep lead sections short. MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests 1-2 paragraphs for an article this size, so I'd suggest going through your lead section to see what's less important and trim it.
 * The lead used to be five paragraphs, which was way beyond what is expected, and I trimmed it down to just the three. If I can find a way to cut it down to just two, I'll get to it; as it stands though, I think the lead isn't too jarring in its size, and is comprehensive enough to warrant three paragraphs. But that's just my personal take.
 * Expect to get some pushback about your large lead image. I think it's fine, but I've seen some reviewers object to large images like this.  See for example, Featured article candidates/Brooklyn Dodgers 1, Boston Braves 1 (26 innings)/archive1.
 * I based this one off the article Ukiyo-e. I would think that a gallery in the lead section is necessary for initial illustration.
 * Add Use dmy dates
 * Done.
 * Overall, a really nice bit of writing!
 * Thank you so much for the compliment, and thank you for your review! I appreciate it a lot. Let me know if you have any other comments!

SchroCat
I hope these help. Nice article and it's nice to see a fair few covers I own on there. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Overall
 * Lovely illustrations, but I suspect you'll be hard pressed to keep them all when this gets to a formal review.
 * Thank you! Unfortunately, I also suspect the same, but I already feel as if I can cut down if necessary.
 * Lead
 * "utilized": "used" is a better word
 * Fixed.
 * 1956–1967
 * "of the magazine Esquire": why not "of Esquire magazine"?
 * Fixed.
 * "Coleman, a saxophonist for the label and also a painter": slightly more accurate (and an easier read) to say "Coleman, a saxophonist for the label, who also painted,"
 * Fixed.
 * "Alfred Lion sold Blue Note": Just the surname needed
 * Done.
 * "400 to 500 covers for the label's musicians": either lose the last word or the last four words as superfluous (plus he didn't create them for the label's musicians, so much as for the label)
 * Dropped the last four words.
 * 1967–present
 * "Jackie McLean's" – drop the 'Jackie' (x 2)
 * Done.
 * Style and composition
 * "Jackie McLean's" – drop the 'Jackie' (x 2)
 * Done.
 * Sourcing
 * Per MOS:SECTIONSTYLE, you shouldn't be repeating the word "sources" as titles for sub-sections. Accordingly, "Academic sources" I'd suggest putting as "Journals" (after all, books can be academic sources too). For "Other sources", I'd suggest splitting down to "Interviews" for two of them, ""Media notes" for two of them and "Website" for the final one. There are other options too (including just renaming as "Others"), but it looks odd having a section for one journal, while you have 2 interviews and 2 audio notes bundled into an 'others' section.
 * Fixed.


 * Thank you for your review, and I'm glad to hear that you think it's nice! Hopefully I've addressed everything you've mentioned above. Have a great weekend! joeyquism (talk ) 11:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)