Details of a successful Good-Article nomination, reviewed by Mark Artsten
The nomination for Good-Article status was reviewed by Mark Artsten, who made many suggestions for improving the article, which was awarded GA status.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Alright, I'll take a shot at reviewing this--I've seen the logo popping up on talk pages a few times :) Mark Arsten (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like the anglerfish, Kiefer.Wolfowitz has evolved strategies to entice editors to this article.
Thanks again, Mark!
I did learn a trick or two from the angler fish! ;)
There is more information on DGM's success and headaches at the DGM website, on the page "about DGM". The article ignores such information, because of a lack of secondary reliable sources (according to my amateur search).
To save you time, I did another copy-edit of the article. The thought of a main-page appearance in half a fortnight wonderfully concentrates the mind!
Just read through the article, will try to post a few comments later. I don't see much in the way of issues--you did a great job with the copyedit. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! Thanks for the update! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: I love the fish :)
Citations should be in ascending order: [15][3][1][16] should be [1][3][15][16].
According to the EL checker, the "Seven Guitar Craft themes" link could use an accessdate and the "Pictish knotwork borders" could use a subscription required template.
It might be helpful to note some of the genres in the Artists section, for those who aren't familiar with them.
"Fripp had used "Discipline" as the initial name of the 1980s King Crimson (KC), before the other members told Fripp that they wanted to continue the tradition of King Crimson." A little more explanation might be nice here, did they break up and reunite?
"By publicly writing his diary, Robert Fripp has challenged his readers to become active listeners and intelligent participants in musical performances" A little more explanation would be nice here too, is Fripp the only diarist on the DGM website or are there others?
I notice that you only have two of the five business aims, maybe summarize or note the other three.
You have some praise by Martin, are there any other notable reactions?
I think album cover and logo might be common enough to remain unlinked.
The article is fairly short, but length is not part of the GA (or even the FA) criteria. I assume you have exhausted the available reliable sources on here. As you say above, it could be padded a bit by primary sources--but I think you're right in avoiding that. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Replies:
Citations: DONE! Will fix. (Not my favorite MOS guideline, if it is an MOS guideline.) My order prioritized secondary sources over primary sources.
Access-date for the 7 scores: DONE! Will add. I will add the access-date, although I thought it was distracting. HOWEVER, the link to a searchable version of Bain is at Amazon.Uk, and does not need a subscription: the link-checker is confused because Amazon truncates the real url.
Genres: DONE! Before, the paragraph was essentially a list. I provided context and prose for the artists. I suppose Christos Papadimitriou was correct to gloss The Beatles as "an English rock-band" in his Computational Complexity. ;) I don't like to pigeon-hole these bands. Even the most commercially successful artists now release DGM albums of experimental music. The reader can follow the links to get more information, imho. (I shall improve the statement about Guitar Craft.)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Re-formation of King Crimson. DONE! (I simplified this and explained what could be explained clearly. Of that which could not be explained clearly, thereof the article now is silent.)
Reliable sources mention only Fripp, as far as I can tell).
Original Research, being banned, cannot mention the "off" off-topic (but notable per Ben-and-Jerry's "weird enough" criterion) topics:
'The Vicar', who apparently produces records and helps at DGM; he has his own website; the Vicar's diaries seem to consist largely of complaints about a punk-rocking assistant, with impulse-control problems over his sexual urges, who may or may not be The Vicar. C.f. [1]
(The fansite Elephant Talk used to have parody diaries by "Norbert Fragg", e.g. [2], which Fripp has noticed with amusement; c.f. Milton's response to a parody in Dwight MacDonald's collection.)
Two of five "aims": I thought that more extensive quotation may violate "fair use" and the DGM Terms of Service. Also, I don't think that other aims have been quoted in secondary sources. The other three aims do not seem as distinct or clear as the two quoted, but perhaps you could review them, and contribute an independent assessment?
The two noted aims have often been noted, but the accomplishments have been passed over in the literature. I don't remember any other discussions of DGM's achievements. (As noted on the talk page earlier, DGM has statements particularly in 2005 about its successes and disappointments, which do not appear in secondary sources.)
DONE! I agree that album cover and logo (3 times---ouch!) should be unlinked. Thanks!
I am conscious that as a recent customer of DGM and long-time fan of Fripp and KC I am prone to writing a positive article, and therefore I have been careful to avoid using primary sources except to document a claim in a secondary source. (It took work to find references to the ownership of the KC logo, for example.) I have not read more than a paragraph of the Law-Review article mentioning DGM, because of its cost, I warn. Otherwise, I did a rather thorough search for secondary sources using Google Scholar, Google Books, and JSTOR.
(The Rosenbergs were repeatedly referenced because of the band's fights with at least one record company over internet gifts of their music. I judge that documenting their struggle belongs in an article on The Rosenbergs (band), which was red-linked until yesterday.)
I shall now implement the promised improvements. Thanks again for your helpful suggestions.
Very interesting, I'll post a few more comments/responses later. RE: law review, are you familiar with WP:RX? You might be able to get a hold of it there. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Like Blanche, I could ask "a lawyer acquaintance of mine", in fact a law professor, to help; he saw the prototypical "mobile intelligent unit" tour, Frippertronics in his youth. However, I prefer not to violate the publisher's terms of use, particularly because I don't think there is much in this article. (This is different than tracking down a South African thesis about a slave rebellion!)
Honestly, I have not read the "Further reading" articles or books. The old magazine articles cover Fripp's dislike of the recording industry, but they belong in his biography, predating DGM. Newspapers have reported on Fripp's cage matches with E.G. Records, but they also seem off topic, and are also pre DGM. I feel bad about not having read Sid Smith's book, which is now out of print, alas, and c. 200 USD; I assume it would have been as useful as Tamm's and more up to date. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I took a look at the law review article and there was just a brief mention in a footnote, nothing really of worth. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That article did not add anything to the article, so I've removed it, following your assurance that it was only tangentially related to this article. Thanks again! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Summary by KW
I believe that I've responded to everything. The recently revised paragraphs can especially benefit from further copy-editing, to which I shall return tomorrow. Thanks again for your help! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the comments and humor, I've just read through and I'm satisfied that all of my concerns have been dealt with as much as is possible given the sourcing. I made a few tweaks to the prose, but I didn't see much to change (which is unusual around here!). Also I like the use of the subjunctive. One prose note: "with Fripp performing" is the WP:PLUSING construction, but I can't think of a good way around it at the moment. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I shall look at it again! Thanks for the suggestion! Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm content to pass the article now. Thanks for the quick responses. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I spotchecked notes 9a, 3d, and 21b: they were all basically ok, I made a minor revision to the sentence supported by the last one since I couldn't find anything about The Rosenbergs clashing with Universal over free downloads. Feel free to revert that if I missed it in the book. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that error, in which I remembered another reference about The Rosenbergs (which is not cited). After the review, I double- and triple-checked the cited reference, and improved the discussion. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to mention, I read through the business about the images and they look ok to me. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Verno Whitney and Sven Manguard both guided me through the OTRS process, which was much easier than I had feared. Thanks to them both (Verno especially for the official approval), and to you for checking the images, which have been a problem in the past. (Thanks also to Demiurge1000 for catching an error a few months ago, with a fair use image in a DYK.) Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
