Wikipedia:Peer review/Remain in Light/archive1

Remain in Light


This peer review discussion has been closed.

Oldies: I hope you've boogied to it. Newbies: go listen to this. To both: I'd appreciate a PR against the FA criteria. All points welcome, but from experience, I think a rigorous prose review would be ideal. Cheers. RB88 (T) 05:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Brianboulton comments: Well, here's a beginning. Mainly suggested prose tweaks, but also requests for clarification when the meaning is unclear.
 * Lead
 * "...the record's creation" - For consistency I believe this should be "the album's creation"
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Last phrase, "reissued with four additional unfinished outtakes." Not quite right: "reissued with the addition of four unfinished outtakes" is probably more accurate unless there were unfinished outtakes in the original album,
 * In any event, "outtakes" should be linked.
 * BOTH DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Origins
 * It is not clear what this sentence means: "The band members realised that their songs' format as a quartet contradicted their content, in that it was solely up to Byrne to bear the creative burden of crafting tracks." Some rewording/clarification?
 * "The band members realised that it was solely up to Byrne to bear the creative burden of crafting songs even though the tracks were performed as a quartet." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Instead of him presenting lyrics before songs were created, Talking Heads performed instrumental jam sessions using the Fear of Music song "I Zimbra" as a starting point." It is not clear why the second of these activities (Talking Heads performing instrumental jam sessions) is presented as an alternative to the first. Does it mean that instead of writing music to lyrics, the band improvised music without words?
 * "Instead of the band writing music to Byrne's lyrics, Talking Heads performed instrumental jam sessions without words using the Fear of Music song "I Zimbra" as a starting point." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Studio sessions
 * "The album compelled..." Inanimate objects can't compel. "Producing the album required..." (or compelled if you must)
 * "include" followed quickly by "including" should be avoided. You could say "add further" instead of "include additional"
 * FOR BOTH: "The album's creation required the use of additional musicians, including extra percussionists." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "disjunct process": I assume this is referring to the extended interval between two musical sounds, but this won't be clear to all readers. The wikilink on "disjunct" is unhelpful; perhaps reword?
 * "discontinuous" RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "who had engineered for musicians such as Bob Marley since the age of 17" - not, surely, since Marley was 17? To avoid confusion I suggest: "who since the age of 17 had engineered for musicians such as Bob Marley..."
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The tracks made Byrne rethink his vocal style and he tried singing words," - excuse my ignorance, but what was he singing previously?
 * Noone knows. (Just kidding. Although have a look at the "I Zimbra" lyrics.) "The tracks made Byrne rethink his vocal style and he tried singing words to the instrumental songs, but sounded "stilted"." RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigma Sound can be linked (Sigma Sound studios)
 * It's already been linked in Origins. I hate to overlink even within a large article. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "after convincing" rather than "by convincing"
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Harrison invited Hendryx to Sigma Sound" I'd forgotten by this time who "Hendryx" was. Could we have her full name?
 * If you think it needs it, then DONE. RB88 (T) 11:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The rest of the review will follow in the next day or two. Brianboulton (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Second instalment
 * Design
 * "collage of a series of.." is a bit wordy. Why not just "a collage of red warplanes..."?
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The initial back cover included simple portraits of the band members." This sounds inconclusive; the initial back cover included... Does that imply that it was subsequently changed? If so, can this be clarified? (I see this is clarified in the next para)
 * "The idea for the back cover included simple portraits of the band members." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "computer power was limited in the early 1980s; the mainframe alone took up several rooms." Both these statements are true, but power and size are different things, and the statements shouldn't be connected by a semicolon. I'm not sure that mainframe size is particularly relevant, and the sentence could end at "early 1980s."
 * "The process was tortuous because computer power was limited in the early 1980s and the mainframe alone took up several rooms." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "the notable graphic designer..." Whose description? Suggest delete "notable" to preserve neutrality
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The designing process made the band members realise that the title Melody Attack was "too flippant" for the music recorded and they chose to use Remain in Light." Is there any history or reasoning behind the choice of name? Also "they chose to use Remain in Light" makes it seem like a temporary or working title; why not say they adopted the title "Remain in Light''?
 * DONE. The only explanation is given in the adjacent quote box. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although I am not a fan of short paragraphs, there probably should be a break after "C/T", to indicate the change of subject.
 * Me, too. Attempted a merging workaround: "The design credits read "HCL, JPT, DDD, WALTER GP, PAUL, C/T". The final mass-produced version of Remain in Light boasted one of the first computer-designed record jackets in the history of music." RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Promotion and release
 * "to do justice to the new material". Who is being quoted here?
 * Removed it, not that essential. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Sire" hasn't been mentioned since the lead and I'd forgotten who it/he was. "Sire Records..."?
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "alphabetical form" → "alphabetical order" (the usual idiomatic phrase)
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Lyrics
 * Citation needed for first sentence
 * All citations cover all the preceding material up to the previous citation. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "frontman" description hasn't been used for a while and I'd long since forgotten who this was.
 * Well, it comes after Byrne. I'm assuming that people would get it. I'll have a look at the word's mentions throughout though. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First mention of "The Great Curve" needs to explain that this is a song title.
 * DONE.
 * "Some critics..." Who? And what is the source of the quotation that follows?
 * The NPR ref only says "some critics". The source is the same for the quotation, given in response to NPR's question. RB88 (T)
 * Composition
 * "latter" means second of two, not last in a list of three or more. Should be "last-named"
 * DONE.
 * The word "riff" should be linked
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "The song was made in spite of no band member having heard the music of Joy Division; rather, it was based on an idea of what the British quartet might sound like based on descriptions in the music press." Requires citation
 * All citations cover all the preceding material up to the previous citation. This page happened to have a bit more info than the others. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Critical reception: "...after the band managed to turn rock music into a more global entity..." Seems there should be a "had" before "managed".
 * Simpler: "after the band turned rock music" RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Accolades: Sentence construction: "...in the 1980 Pazz & Jop critics' poll run by The Village Voice, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers." It is the poll, not The Village Voice, that aggregates the votes, so this should read "in the 1980 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers and is run by The Village Voice.
 * Simpler: "in the The Village Voices 1980 Pazz & Jop critics' poll, which aggregates the votes of hundreds of prominent reviewers." RB88 (T') 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Release history chart
 * It would look neater if the years were centred in the table
 * DONE. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The "Catalog" heading should be "Catalog number".
 * Followed Albums which only says "catalog". RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's it, really. I'm not watching my peer reviews for the moment, so if you have queries or want me to look again, please give me a ping. Brianboulton (talk) 21:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. RB88 (T) 12:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments from indopug: One major thing I spot right away is the use of minor, not-very-reputed webzines like Slant and Sputnikmusic as reviewers. (Sputnikmusic is barely considered even an RS) What about the NME and Melody Maker? Rock's Back Pages seems to have a lot of articles about the Heads here. Might be worth checking out. indopug (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's only two (NME and Musician) that aren't used but available. I don't have subscription but be my guest and add them to the two remaining slots if you can. Also, calling Slant and Sputnkimusic "not-very-reputed" is a bit slanderous. We can't all be Rolling Stone. All the publications meet the notability and reliability thresholds. I think you'll appreciate that for an album released decades ago, I've done a pretty good job. Even went the other side of London to find a transcripted library issue of Sounds. RB88 (T) 10:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh I never implied that your work isn't excellent, just that the article is not yet ready for FAC.
 * Without reading it all, you have a verdict?? RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyway, "album released decades ago" was my whole point actually, I don't see why you would then consider the opinions of relatively minor webzines (I believe WesleyDodds has an account by the way); you should look to use the most authoritative publications available, not sites that just about "meet the notability and reliability thresholds." (I mean, esp. sputnikmusic. I have seen Slant mentioned by mainstream media a bunch of times, but never sputnik)
 * Used by AOL: . Metacritic have them: . It wouldn't have its own wiki page if such criteria was not fulfilled. Otherwise, people like me would put it up at AfD. There's 10 slots in the review box and I could only find 8. The idea is to use what you can find (reliability wise) after exhausting the notable ones, which I have. I'll ask Wes though for the remaining two. RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found two myself and replaced Sputnik with the Spin Alternative Record Guide. RB88 (T) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The prose in the lead (haven't yet read the rest) is choppy. A lot of the sentences go "It was" or "The album was", and there isn't really a flow from one idea to the next. For example: "The artwork was designed with the help of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's computers. The band expanded to nine members for the album's promotional concerts." There is absolutely no flow from one sentence to the next there.
 * OK then, have a go at fixing it and I'll see if I concur. Note that Brianboulton who's pretty thorough and clinical didn't point such stuff out above. RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been fixed. RB88 (T) 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of overusing "the band" or "the album" consider using the "Talking Heads"/"Remain In Light" instead. indopug (talk) 10:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * But then you'd write a point saying "Stop overusing Talking Heads and Remain in Light". I don't like to use the band name because people always complain about plural verbs at FAC. I'll see if Remain in Light can be added more although I usually use a limit of one mention per paragraph max. RB88 (T) 11:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Also also, in this case, the name was only picked after it was created. They were using Melody Attack throughout. I didn't want to use that a lot in case I was confusing readers. RB88 (T) 11:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)