Wikipedia:Peer review/Worlds (Porter Robinson album)/archive1

Worlds (Porter Robinson album)


I've listed this article for peer review because I'd love to get it to appear as TFA on August 12, 2024, the tenth anniversary of the album. I'd like to know what can be improved before it goes to FAC.

Thanks, Skyshifter   talk  20:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I've also nominated the article for GAN, as I've learned that a pre-FAC PR can happen simunatenously with a GAN (like here). Skyshifter   talk  12:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Comments from TechnoSquirrel69
Nice. I find it kind of funny that both of Porter Robinson's albums are at peer review pre-FAC at the same time. Since I was planning to conduct a pseudo-GAN review for the article on the talk page anyways, saving a spot here for later. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I will withhold further comments until the GAN concludes — I'm too involved with the article to take it up myself. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If you wish, feel free to include some comments on the PR, even if you don't take the GAN. Skyshifter   talk  12:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Skyshifter: Alright, since the GAN doesn't look like it's going to be picked up soon and we're running out of time, I'll share some high-level comments that I want to discuss. I will also be copyediting the article as promised.
 * Thank you!


 * The lead places disproportionate emphasis on details like the album's main insprations and the list of singles while glossing over large sections like the release. I'll likely workshop this part with you in more detail after my changes.
 * Sure! I am bad at writing lead sections, so any kind of help is appreciated.
 * What's your reasoning behind writing the way it is? I know some other articles do that, but I'm not sure this article is well-served by it. Right now it reads like an amalgamation of commentary that would normally be delineated into composition, themes, and reception sections. Take a look at the structure recommendations in MOS:ALBUM.
 * A Composition section that talks about the album in general is already there. The Songs section is strictly for commentary about each specific song, instead of what the critics said about the album in general. I think this is a question of preference and other FAs also have a similar structure, such as 1989 (album) ("Composition" being comparable to "Overview"), and Red (Taylor Swift album) (the size of the "Songs" section here being more comparable to the Worlds one). I can see both types of structure working, and personally I prefer the "Songs" type one.
 * The sentence beginning "When a voice says..." has a long series of unattributed quotes. It seems really fragmented in its current contruction; consider rewriting it.
 * Rewritten
 * More in general, this article has quotes here and there where it's ambiguous who's writing. Try to make sure every quote is properly attributed.
 * Could you give some examples other than the "Fellow Feeling" one? I couldn't find them.
 * Here's a non-exhaustive list: "slight[ly] sad", "bangers" and the longer quote after it, and "mayhem" jumped out to me at the moment. For most of these, the speaker is identified somewhere nearby, but I prefer to be extremely clear about who's words I'm using when I'm writing. It's always a challenge to balance the editorial needs of attribution and what you describe as making "flow-y prose", (See what I did there? ) but I think attribution takes a higher priority. —TS
 * The mayhem one seems reasonable and has been fixed. However, I can't see how the other ones aren't being properly attributed. In the following sentence: I find it hard to believe that the "bangers" part could be attributed to anyone else other than O'Connell here. The sentence is just one; O'Connell is saying that Robinson "mixed EDM tropes and nu-rave" with both "M83-like synth-pop" and with bangers' by Daft Punk and Justice". There's no reason for them to be separate. In  I don't see how "He" could refer to anybody else when "Robinson" is immediately before it. So honestly, I can't see the problem with those.  Skyshifter   talk  02:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I missed the part mentioning O'Connell, that's my bad. As for "slight[ly] sad", you need to be careful to avoid writing interpretive claims in a way that appears like it's in Wikipedia's voice. I have no doubt that the "" in that sentence refers to Robinson, but the descriptor that follows could conceivably be from him, a reviewer, or even Wikipedia — that's the part that's unclear. Thankfully, it's an easy fix; something along the lines of "" should work. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure Skyshifter   talk  14:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of has a series of statements from reviewers that don't relate to each other very much. For example, Stolman talking about the emotional affect followed by Buerger's "headphone music" comment. This essay has some solid advice on how to structure reception sections and avoid these issues.
 * The way I separated the section was: positive reviews for the 2nd paragraph, less-than-positive reviews for the 3rd paragraph (they mostly say things like "the album is ok-ish but Robinson has a future/Robinson is young" or smth like that), and mixed and negative reviews for the 4th one. I'll see what I can do with that 2nd paragraph, but I would still like to keep this kind of separation.
 * I won't pretend that reception sections are my greatest strength either, but I would recommend sorting reviewers' comments by theme rather than by how much they liked the album. I feel it's much more valuable from an encyclopedic standpoint to string together what different reviewers had to say about, for example, the sound design, than to put a bunch of unrelated positive or negative comments together. Let me know what you think. —TS
 * I did some reorganization; do you think it's better? Currently, I think AXS is connected with Spin on their praises; Rolling Stone and Billboard on citing EDM; AllMusic, Pitchfork and Uncut on saying Robinson's future is promising and/or that he's young; and Consequence and Alternative Press with their comments on the records' coherence (which I believe "remix album" implies). I'm not sure if it could be improved. Skyshifter   talk  02:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that, I feel it's a step in the right direction. I'll probably be back with some more nitpicks, again, after I'm done with the detailed prose changes. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've tried to reorganize it a bit, should be slightly better. Still want to keep the "positive -> less positive -> mixed" thing going on though.
 * Be careful about linking together unrelated quotes in the same sentence. A couple of times you take reviewers with differing opinions and lay them out like "[Reviewer] said [this], while [reviewer] said [that]", which could could be a neutrality issue in that circumstance.
 * I tried to have some kind of connection when doing that. For example, in the "Goodbye to a World" part, Howe and Staples are talking about genres; regarding "Sad Machine", Fitzmaurice and Prevatt are talking about bands. If there are any examples where there is absolutely no sense I'll be happy to reword them; however, I also wanted to create a more flow-y prose, which may not be possible if I can't use this kind of structure.
 * The detail about Worlds Remixed being delayed due to a remixer dropping out strikes me as undue weight. Do multiple sources mention the reason for the delay? If not, consider taking that detail out.
 * Removed
 * In, it might be worth going into a bit more detail on how Nurture composition and themes were impacted by Worlds and Robinson's attempt to distance himself from his old style.
 * Sure! I added some information about that.
 * Using Spotify and YouTube as a primary sources to verify release dates are techincally fine, but might not hold up at the FA level. I might look around for some news sources to replace them.
 * I've only used primary sources where I couldn't find any secondary source. Their use is limited, so I think it's acceptable. At most I can see the "Sad Machine" video info being removed (not sure how apparently nobody reported on that), but I think the "Flicker" one is important enough.
 * WP:MEDIUM advises to use Cuepoint sources sparingly and depending on the reliability of the author. What's your justification that the author of that review is reliable?
 * It's not a review, but an interview, and I am strictly using Robinson's words, so I think WP:ABOUTSELF etc. applies here.

—TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:52, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * thanks! Responded to everything (though some changes are still in progress). should all be done now! Skyshifter   talk  17:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick additional comment: I'd recommend using this script to identify and remove duplicate links. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 03:34, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I removed one link that was repeated twice in the same section. Per MOS:REPEATLINK, I'd like to link to an article once for every major section, so i.e. the repeat links at Reception from Songs are all intentional. (I also prefer reintroducing the full writer name and publication here as the Songs section was "long ago"). Skyshifter   talk  14:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)