Talk:Rounds (album)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Popcornduff (talk · contribs) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, at the encouragement of Sparklism, I'm going to review this article for Good Article status. Although I've written a few articles that have achieved GA status, this will be the first time I review one myself, so here goes nothing! Popcornduff (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic! I'm pretty busy today, but I will get to this in earnest tomorrow :) (btw, though I've reviewed a few articles myself, this is my first article to be reviewed, so we are both in the same boat, sort of. This could spell disaster!) — sparklism ^hey! 21:16, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General[edit]

The article could do with an image (other than the cover art) to liven it up a bit. Popcornduff (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit I'm a bit stuck with this one. Usually for an album article, there's a few candidates for an image, like collaborators, equipment, fancy packaging, recording locations etc., but there's not much to go at here. This is an album written, recorded and produced by one guy in his flat, on his own, using only a computer. I'd like use a screenshot image of some of the software he used e.g. Cool Edit Pro or Cakewalk Pro Audio 9, but I don't have one. I guess the strongest contender would be this image of Hebden, but I don't really know where to put it (I guess a simple caption could be "Rounds was recoded and produced by Kieran Hebden" or something). What do you suggest I do here? Thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 11:27, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an appropriate image to me; if you used it with a caption summarising a key point about the album - something like "Keiran Hebden produced Rounds almost entirely from heavily processed samples", or some other key point -- it would work fine. Check out how the OK Computer or Pinkerton (album) articles do it, for example. Popcornduff (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done How's that? — sparklism ^hey! 12:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I think you should mention that the album was included in several "best of the decade" lists; seems important. Popcornduff (talk) 12:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Good point, done. — sparklism ^hey! 13:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording[edit]

"After spending the early part of his career titling songs with arbitrary names, he decided to use more personal titles.[6] Hebden drew on influences from Pete Rock, DJ Premier,[7] Jim O'Rourke's I'm Happy and I'm Singing and a 1, 2, 3, 4, Timbaland, the Neptunes and Rodney Jerkins' work on Whitney Houston's "It's Not Right but It's Okay" and Brandy and Monica's "The Boy Is Mine".[4]" These sentences don't seem to be connected to each other; you go from talking about influences, then talking about song titles, then back to the influences. You discuss the album title later; would this be a better place for the information about titles?

Done I've reordered this. — sparklism ^hey! 11:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing - the info about the title of "As Serious As Your Life" should probably be moved to the same paragraph where you discuss titles. Popcornduff (talk) 15:54, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense - done. — sparklism ^hey! 11:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not sure what "titling songs with arbitrary names" means exactly; did he give them names at random, or what? Can you be more precise?

Done That's exactly what it means. In the interview he says "I'd just choose a whole bunch of random words and chuck them on everything," so I've tweaked the text to be a bit clearer. — sparklism ^hey! 11:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, a long list of influences is hard to read; it would be nice to explain how these artists influenced Hebden specifically, on what songs. e: it looks like the long list mostly comes from a source that doesn't go into this kind of detail; in that case it might be best to cut the list down a little for readability. For example, you could just mention Rodney Jenkins rather than name which of his songs in particular.

Done OK - I've tried to simplify this (you are correct - there's not enough to go into the detail). — sparklism ^hey! 11:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your Spin reference is dead.

Hmm. I assume you're referring to the Colin Joyce interview, which doesn't appear to be dead to me. Can you clarify what you mean, or am I missing something? — sparklism ^hey! 08:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine for me now too - I probably got mixed up. The exlcaim.ca reference doesn't work for me now, so that's probably the one I meant, sorry. Popcornduff (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see you fixed this - thanks for that! — sparklism ^hey! 16:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musical content[edit]

Section could probably be renamed "Music". Musical content is music, and what other content would you expect an album to contain?

Done Ha! Well, one could reasonably expect an album to contain some lyrics, so sometimes in an album article I'd call this section "Music and lyrics". This obviously isn't the case here, so I was looking for a title that was a bit more than just "Music"...but now that you point it out, I'm happy just to use the simplest term. — sparklism ^hey! 08:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This section is very quote-heavy, and I think it crosses over too much into critical reception rather than a functional description of the songs. I think you should paraphrase the quotes where you can. For example, "'Slow Jam' was described as a 'warm, wide-eyed, watching-the-sun-rise song ... the chiming guitars on the track are gorgeous, and the inclusion of the sound of a child’s squeaky toy only makes your smile wider.'" could become something like: "'Slow Jam' was described as a 'warm, wide-eyed, watching-the-sun-rise song", with chiming guitars and a sample of a child's squeaky toy."

OK, I see your point. I've had a go at this - how does it look now? (I've kept the first 3 quotes as-is, since I think they sum up the music of the album perfectly) — sparklism ^hey! 10:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's an improvement, but you still have too many quotes containing value judgements, I think. For example, "an awe-inspiring folktronica tapestry" can just become "folktronica tapestry", for example. Do you see what I mean? It's not a POV or puffery issue - I just we should save the platitudes for the reception section. e: actually, that example and the "implausible but beautiful" quote are the only ones that bother me, I think. e2: I spoke too soon; "saying that it was the best recording of Hebden's career so far" in the next paragraph isn't relevant here. Popcornduff (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've made these changes. — sparklism ^hey! 11:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The nine-minute track "Unspoken", originally based on a sample from the Tori Amos song "Winter" and reworked when Hebden failed to get sample clearance,[16] " This sounds like a detail for the Recording section, not this section.

Done — sparklism ^hey! 10:51, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"forty-five minutes" should be "45 minutes" as per W:MOS.

Done — sparklism ^hey! 08:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release[edit]

"b-side" should be "B-side".

Done — sparklism ^hey! 08:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"To celebrate the album's tenth anniversary" - this is marketing speak; was this really rereleased for celebration purposes, or did the record company use the 10-year anniversary as an excuse to reissue the album to, you know, sell it some more?

Done I see what you mean (it was a pretty lame reissue IMHO, they should've given it the proper treatment with B-sides, remixes, demos etc.) - anyway I've removed the first part of the sentence. — sparklism ^hey! 08:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

I think giving Pitchfork its own sentence here gives it undue weight. "It appears on similar best-of-decade lists by Drowned in Sound,[36] One Thirty BPM,[38] GQ[36] and No Ripcord.[39]" I'd like to know where the album placed in each case. In the Amnesiac article, for example, I did it like this (but with better formatting obviously!): "Several music publications ranked Amnesiac one of the best albums of 2001. Q placed it among its top 50,[41] Rolling Stone ranked it the 10th,[42] the Village Voice Pazz and Jop poll the 6th,[43] the Los Angeles Times the 5th, and Alternative Press ranked it best.[44]"

Done Agreed. I've had a bash at this - how does it look now? — sparklism ^hey! 09:00, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other suggestions (I won't fail the GA review for not following them)[edit]

The Pitchfork interview suggests that people didn't realise the album was made almost entirely of samples until later (possibly even this interview?). That's interesting and might be worth mentioning briefly.

You could also go into a little bit more detail on the sample library he used, as it sounds fascinating (from the Rolling Stone interview): "I was sampling a little bit of flute off one record, and a little bit of guitar off one record, and then a bunch of drum machine sounds I found on the Internet, and then some piano that was on a DVD or something. Making collages out of loads and loads of sounds."

I wonder if there's any way you could mention the influence the album had? I know Four Tet is an influence on Radiohead, for one thing. The Rolling Stone article mentions that it influenced Thom Yorke and Bruce Springsteen; if you researched those guys, for example, you might be able to find details of the album's influence on them, if any.

On hold[edit]

OK, I've been pretty nitpicky, but I think this is a strong article. A few spot checks of the sources back up the claims you make, references look consistent, prose is good, and it seems to cover appropriate areas having read a few of the source articles. I'm going to put the GA review on hold while you address the issues I've raised. Hope my comments so far made sense. Please feel free to ask me any questions.

I'm also going to invite another more experienced GA editor in to review my review, and see if I've gone quite mad anywhere. Popcornduff (talk) 22:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I've responded to most things above - let me know what you think! Cheers :) — sparklism ^hey! 11:30, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I'm satisfied that you've addressed the issues. Nice work! It's a Good Article! (Hope my first review wasn't too embarrassing for you.) Popcornduff (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you very much! And your review was great too :) — sparklism ^hey! 16:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]