This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Lead is...passable, I was never the best at them, but I've also done better. I don't like a paragraph that's just barely two lines to start it off, but I can live with it, I guess. I personally would reword a maybe a couple things, but content-wise the rest of the lead is ok the way it is at the moment and I'll be bold later and ask if you like them or not.
The only problem I have here is that in the third paragraph, you use a variation of the word "collaborate" four times in four sentences. Let's slow down a bit with the rapid-fire of that word and spice it up a little bit so the prose isn't boring and dull, but still accurate. A little more...engaging. Everything else is fine here!
The quote is "The gorgeous, folky opener, Hold You Now, has a choral sample from The Thin Red Line (a co-writing credit for Hans Zimmer)". Jimmio78 (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
To start, I'd consider revising the opening sentence we discussed above to a couple: The first track, "Hold You Now", has been described by The Times as "a gorgeous, folky opener". It features a sample from Hans Zimmer's choral score for The Thin Red Line.
It is less inhibited than past releases by the band, and contrasts warm, pleasant music against heavy and dark lyrics, while exploring a broad musical palette. The problem with using such fancy language at the beginning of the sentence is that a casual reader may not clearly know what you mean. I think it would be better to not have tried so hard here and instead start by saying that a broader musical palette was explored than past releases by the band. That alone would cover all that's said in the beginning ("less inhibited" part).
features frequent biblical imagery frequently features biblical imagery?
inspired by country duets taking inspiration from country duets
The Spin cite for Harmony Hall isn't necessary, the other two cover the given material enough. Don't go overkill.
"Crunch guitars" are not an official term, it's just a tone that reviewers frequently talk about. Thus, I think it would be better to quote it as "crunchy guitars" per the article cited as what they literally described as being part of the song.
"vibrant and eclectic" might be a little bit too much WP:OR - I get you're trying not to quote too much, but ironically, I don't know if it's acceptable to replace what they said here with this set of your own words. I think that because I wonder, is "sparkling" (NME) necessarily "eclectic"? Maybe cut "and eclectic" with a little word rearrangement to get: The brief, vibrant "Bambina" contains vocoder and crunch guitar.
Is there a link to the recording on which iLoveMakonnen's "Tonight" originally appeared? If so, please pipe it.
For "This Life", I would recommend repeating the Pitchfork footnote before the Van Morrison info.
Its sparse electronic backdrop has been compared to the music on Kanye West's 808s & Heartbreak (2008) (I just think it feels awkward to compare one song to an entire album, which I feel this change would at least somewhat resolve). Also, split the two references at the end of this sentence and move one to the end of the snippet above, and keep the other which cites the later info where it is. Then it's easier to access. I'd sort of wish you'd do that for "How Long?" and others with three references at the end, but I won't require it there (looks like it may be a little too hard). And I don't have access to the Uncut source, so I'll leave it alone for now - maybe it's the one calling it "lurching art pop".
I think it would be better for you to present the references for "Unbearably White" as follows: Rolling Stone and Pitchfork after the first sentence, and then the repeated Pitchfork and Stereogum for the race note.
The cryptic "Rich Man" samples palm-wine guitarist S. E. Rogie;[NY Times ref], it also features lush strings... It may seem a little extra of me, but the way you interpolate the information in Wikipedia makes me have to flip back and forth to figure out where I'm looking for my information.
Koenig began writing the song at the 56th Annual Grammy Awards where the group won Best Alternative Music Album. I think it would be appropriate to mention that it was Modern Vampires of the City that won them this award.
"Married in a Gold Rush" is a "lush" country song, and the second on the album to feature Danielle Haim. Or something to that degree.
If you're okay with the way you cited each influence on "Sympathy", would you be okay with doing more of that for information throughout this section for other songs? I'd rather you did that than have three, four references at the end.
Triple J says the name of the Hosono song was "Watering a Flower", not "Talking". Also, I don't know what the need for the liner notes is there, those three cover everything in that sentence.
The anthemic and extravagant "We Belong Together" is the third and final collaboration with Haim.
How is an Instagram story post by Rostam supposed to be verifiable and thus reliable? Don't those disappear? Also, as well as a separate idea Koenig wrote at a piano- stop right there, use a semicolon and drop the 'and' that follows.
Speaking of Rostam, why is he linked all the way down here but not at his first mention in the body?
Is four references for the "microcosm" really necessary? I'd say three is sufficient.
Phew, that's a good bit! Have at that. Sorry I'got so nitpicky here, I started listening to this after I accepted the review and it's freakin great, and now I want to make sure we have an article we're proud of.
Before I get into this, I have one optional change that I put into practice with articles I write. If I may suggest, you can retitle this section simply "Reception" and have level 3 headers separating "critical response" and "commercial performance", since commercial performance sections are often very small and in my opinion do not usually warrant their own full section.
What on earth does "pithy" mean? I've never heard that word before, perhaps we could use an expression that's a little more well-understood?
as opposed to resorting to self-seriousness, what meaningful point am I supposed to make of this?
@DannyMusicEditor: Thank you so much for the review! I think I've addressed everything. Just a couple of things:
It turns out Uncut ended up publishing their review online so I updated that source if you wanted to check a couple of quotes.
The reason I included the liner notes for "2021" is because they credit the Hosono interpolation. The Triple J article miscredited the track title, but I had included it for its musical description.
I was very unsure how to approach citing Batmanglij's Instagram story. I think it included really valuable information and given that it was posted by Batmanglij himself I think it's reliable, but I understand the difficulty verifying it, since it's no longer available. Obviously Reddit isn't a reliable source but in this case I can personally vouch that this screenshot was genuinely from his story. Otherwise I can't think of any other way to cite that information. Jimmio78 (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
Alright, so I inquired about the IG story usage at the Albums Wikiproject. The other two are okay. Otherwise, I'm going to give this a tentative pass, pending the response of WPA. dannymusiceditoroops19:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)Reply
