Talk:Chillwave/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll copyedit as I go through the article; please revert if I screw anything up.

~~What makes these websites reliable sources?~~
- ~~dummymag.com~~
- ~~bandwagon.asia~~
- ~~weldbham.com~~
- ~~tinymixtapes.com~~
Removed Bandwagon. Weldbham source is only used to quote their interview with Alan Palomo (WP:PRIMARY). Dummy Mag and Tiny Mix Tapes are used throughout Wikipedia and are about as reliable as Pitchfork or Gorilla v. Bear so I'm not sure what the issue would be.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck Bandwagon and Weldbham. My reading of PRIMARY is that the interview has to be published by a "reputable source", so even for primary material you have to be sure something is reliable. I think the risk here is very low so I'll let it go. For the other two, I'm not familiar with most music sources and am willing to believe that you're right and they're reliable, but I do need to see the evidence. If others use them then it should be easy to demonstrate. WP:ALBUMS has a sources page here; Dummy is listed there but with no information about why it's reliable. Tinymixtapes isn't listed there. I've posted a query to WT:ALBUMS to ask if anyone has more information; that was very productive last time I tried it so let's see what others say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ilovetopaint: I got a response at WT:ALBUMS that dummymag was OK but tinymixtapes was not. I've struck dummymag.com above. The commenter said he'd like to hear counterarguments; do you want to make a case for tinymixtapes.com being reliable, or remove it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the TMT source.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why is there an image of a cassette in the infobox?~~
MOS:LEADELEMENTS: It is also common for the lead image to be representative because it provides a visual association for the topic, and allow readers to quickly assess if they have arrived at the right page.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I don't see the connection. Am I missing something? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie:@Ilovetopaint:In the article, there are several mentions of a "VHS cassette". That is completely different than a compact cassette. I changed the image to a VHS cassette, and added more to the caption why that image is important in the "Chillwave" article. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 04:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, since I can see the connection now. It doesn't seem a very clear representation of the genre, but it'll do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~vaporware subsequently derived from chillwave: "evolved" might be a better word choice than "derived".~~
Do we really need the multiple quotes from Carles in the first paragraph of the "Etymology" section?

I trimmed a few of the joke examples. It's difficult to summarize his quotes or to leave them out because it offers much more context behind what the term was satirizing. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chillwave is one of the first genres to formulate online: The source has "form" instead of "formulate", which is a problem as "formulate" doesn't mean the same thing. How about "Chillwave was one of the first genres to acquire an identity online"?
~~On chillwave's bedroom pop precursors: what does this mean? Does "on" mean "discussing"? If so I'd use "discussing" or a similar word to make it clearer.~~
~~You use "bedroom pop" and "bedroom producers"; neither is defined or linked. Is there a possible link?~~
It is linked in an earlier paragraph.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So it is; sorry. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The movement's vanguard was represented by: why "represented"? I think it would be simpler to just say "Neon Indian (Alan Palomo), Washed Out (Ernest Greene), and Toro y Moi (Chaz Bundick) were the vanguard of the chillwave movement".
All three were one-man acts from the Southern U.S, while the last two were acquaintances and collaborators: it took me a while to realize that this means Greene and Bundick were acquaintances and collaborators. Suggest saying it that way; it would be much clearer to the reader.
The paragraph starting "Although it had no specific geographical sourcepoint..." has three quotes that are essentially strung together with no text accompanying them. We shouldn't use quotes like this; can you reconstruct this paragraph so that it makes a statement and uses the quotes to support it? Quotes are for illustration; they shouldn't be the primary means by which readers get the information in the article.
The Beach Boys' Brian Wilson, who had been compared to Animal Collective, were mentioned as a "looming figure" t: some confusion here. Is it Brian Wilson or The Beach Boys that were compared to Animal Collective? And which one is the subject of mentioned? It seems to be The Beach Boys, because you use "were", not "was", but then you have "a" looming figure, not looming figures. Can you clarify?
Your question leaves me just as confused because the entire paragraph is clearly singling out Wilson's influence. He was to the Beach Boys what Lennon, McCartney, and George Martin were to the Beatles.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty sure you meant Wilson, but you have "were mentioned", which requires a plural subject, so it seemed to be referring to the Beach Boys. I've fixed it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph is also almost entirely quotes and needs to be restructured.
~~One of its many descriptions that were leveled by online forums: I don't know what "leveled" means here.~~
All of the "Criticism and decline section" paragraphs have too many quotes; same comments as above -- these needs to be restructured to make the quotes less primary.
I'm not sure how useful the "list of artists" is; I wouldn't fail GA for this, of course, but it seems to be something that could be better handled by the chillwave category.

Generally the prose is not great, but it's serviceable. The biggest problem with the article is the overuse of quotes. Take a look at this; it's a version of the article with all the quotes bolded. The ratio of quote text to article text should be much less. I think it'll be fairly time consuming to fix this, and I'm not sure it can be done in the timeframe for a GA review, but I'll place the article on hold and let you respond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done everything except what I've responded to. If need be I can try trimming more of the quotes over the next couple of days. --Ilovetopaint (talk) 18:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the points above are struck; there are one or two minor things left plus the two sources I asked about. However, I feel there are still far too many quotes. Here is another version of the current article with the quotes bolded. You can make a case for plenty of quotes in a reception section (though see WP:RECEPTION for some advice about how to handle quotes), but the other sections are overloaded. I think that outside the reception section the quotes should be cut in half at least. We can say what the quotes say in our own words; quotes are for illustration.

If you disagree, I suggest we mark this review as needing a second opinion and see what another editor says. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I trimmed more of the quotes, but the second diff you linked looks the same as the first.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're different; you can see the version id in the URL.

I'm going to ask for a second opinion; I think that's the best thing here.

Restating the question for whoever picks it up, the question is: how much do we need to reduce quotes to make this acceptable for GA? I feel at least half the quotes need to be cut and replaced by narrative text. See this recent version, which has most (but not all) quotes highlighted, to get an idea of how many quotes there are. (There are more quotes in the lead and in the sound file captions.) Ilovetopaint, please make the case for retaining them, so the second opinion editor can get your side of this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That diff is not the most recent revision, which has been cut down by about a quarter since then. This is a loosely defined genre so it's expected that a substantial amount of the body will comprise the personal interpretations of the journalists who tried to make sense of the topic. Most of these direct quotes are useful because they support and demonstrate the clichés mentioned under "Criticism". --Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mark up the most recent version. It's just to make it easier to see where the quotes are, and how extensive they are. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done; latest version with bolded quotes is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion - First, thanks for the link that bolded the material, making this question much easier to look at. In a quick count, it looks like 935 of the article's 2615 words are quoted material. That's about 36%, which is pretty high. Earwig shows hits over 45%, with the highest at 54. I've passed a small number of articles that were in this range. but at least one of those was later questioned by a third party. I would say that it's acceptable for GA, but that the article would be better if more of the quotes were paraphrased. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Argento Surfer, thanks for the second opinion. I'm going to pass this for GA based on your comments; I agree that the article would be improved if more quotes were paraphrased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]