Talk:Industrial music/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I have just done a quick read through of the article. My first impression that is it pretty close to GA status, but not quite there yet. It is informative and well referenced, however the language is a bit "choppy" and confusing at times. Thus, it is going to need some editing work before it becomes a Good Article. I will have more specific comments on how to improve the language used later today. --ThaddeusB (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial review

I tend to be fairly picky, and in the past I have intimidated people by listing all the (minor) flaws with an article at once. As such, my style is now to list a one or two problems at a time and move one once those are completed...

The two largest problems I see right now are the lead and the referencing:

Per WP:LEAD the lead paragraphs should introduce the topic and summarize the entire article. Right now, it doesn't really summarize very much, but instead stand as only an introduction. My suggestion would be to move most of that info down into a "background" or "introduction" section, possibly combining it with the "characteristics" section. Then a 3-5 paragraph lead should be written that covers all the main points of the article
Looking over the references, there are several bare urls used as references. Please turn these into proper citations. The easiest way to do so is the {{cite web}} template. Additionally, there are several "Ibid."s. Reference numbers are dynamic on Wikipedia, so there is no way to guarantee the "above" item is the same one that was originally intended. These should be checked for accuracy and then "eliminated" by using a named version of the original reference.

If you are unsure about what I am talking about or have other questions, let me know. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the citations should be fixed at this point, and I added a line about post-industrial music to the lead. I'll have to think about how to re-write it completely, however. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 20:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, I think the article's primary problem is one of focus...

I continue to believe that the lead does not adequately summarize the whole article:

The first paragraph defines the term and has one sentence of history (when the term was coined). Arguably, it describes the characteristics of the genre, but not in a way that summarizes the "Characteristics" section.
The second paragraph has three sentences on history (the first of which is arguably summarizing the "Characteristics" section), one on the successors to industrial music, and a list of prominent bands. There is no mention of procurers, which gets four paragraphs in the body. The Industrial Records era and the broadening of the movement get only a half sentence each. The "Industrial music as modernist music" section doesn't seem to have been mentioned either (although that may not be a bad thing - see below).

The characteristics section seems a bit confused. By the title, I assume it is intended to describe the characteristics of industrial music in general, yet it mostly gives examples of what early bands did. It would be better off talking in more general terms, with appropriate examples.
I am unclear to the purpose of the "Industrial music as modernist music" section. It seems to be a collection of quotes about what the music entails. How is this different than "characteristics" (and what makes it "modernist music")? Wouldn't it make more sense to merge the two sections?

Sorry to be a pain. Hopefully these issues can be resolved relatively easily. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry I haven't been able to write anything for several days. I should be able to respond quickly from now on. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I didn't work on this before it was submitted, so I'm not intimately familiar with its structure. I'm going to try to give it a once over of general copy editing, and see how it looks after that. It may be easier to think about structural issues if the language is clearer. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed (at least partially) all of the concerns you've listed above, by re-organizing and re-writing the lead and the characteristics sections. Let me know if you have more specific issues with the way the article is laid out now. Thanks! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and characteristics sections are very much improved. We might still need a bit of tweaking, but those sections are pretty close now. I have one remaining significant concern, before I start looking at the nitty-gritty details. Specifically, I suspect that many peopel who come to this article will actually be looking for information about Wikipedia defines as "industrial rock" and "industrial metal". This is because the term "industrial" is used a an umbrella term in popular culture.

To address this, I think the "post industrial" section should be expanded slightly to explain the differences better and the lead adjusted to a 2-3 sentence explanation of the genre's successors. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is more than a month since the last comment here. What is going on? –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I think I've basically addressed Thaddeus' initial concerns, and myself and a few other editors have been making further (mostly minor) improvements. I posted a note on Thaddeus' talk page waiting for more comments, but have heard nothing. I figured he was busy and would get around to it eventually. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ThaddeusB hasn't edited since May 22, so if he doesn't come back in the next couple days then I'd say try to find a new reviewer. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:39, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking over the review, since he still hasn't edited. I'll post a review either shortly or tomorrow. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the issues I saw:

Quotes can be good, but there's an awful lot in this article. Perhaps a couple could be converted into prose?
So was Industrial Records the first company to start the genre off? Were they made specifically to start the new genre? The beginning of the article is rather confusing as to how this began.
"Genesis P-Orridge would say that "there's an irony in the word 'industrial' because there's the music industry" Who? Link appropriate terms.
The history section should probably go before the characteristics section; that's probably was I was struggling to follow it at first.

Still Reviewing.Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:01, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed most of the issues you raised above, but if someone else wants to take a crack at re-writing some of the quotes, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll give it a shot myself sometime this week. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 22:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the rest of the review:

Since the sections were flipped, make sure that anyone originally linked at the bottom is linked in the history paragraph now (i.e. Chris Carter)
"Chris Carter also enjoyed Pink Floyd and Tangerine Dream.[8] Boyd Rice particularly enjoyed Lesley Gore, and Abba." Is 'enjoying' the music relevant? Or does that mean they got some inspiration from them? I'd reword.
I'm not seeing why the images File:20 Jazz Funk Greats.jpg and File:Industrialculturehandbook.jpg should be in the article; right now they violate fair use guidelines. If they were to stay, the second file's rationale needs improving.
Ref #77 ("Gravity Kills Biography") needs a publisher.
"Without a doubt, the best-selling offshoots of industrial music have been industrial rock and metal;" without a doubt not needed; that part can be removed.

I'll put the article on hold now; when this is fixed it can finally be passed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed the remaining issues:

I changed a couple quotes into prose, and removed one long quote which I'm thinking probably isn't really needed. It was the one from the Industrial Records website, and it seems a bit heavy handed. Since it's accessible on the site itself, I don't think removing it takes much away from the article at all.
Fixed some wikilinks in the history section.
I removed the 20 Jazz Funk Greats image, as it doesn't seem too crucial. If it were their first album, maybe, but since it was the band's third, I believe, it's not necessary to show origins or anything. As for the book image, I left that, since I think it's important, as it is widely used as a source in the article, and since the image has some significant industrial elements, with the blending of man and machine, I think it works. I added some more information to the file's rationale, and I'm waiting to get a response about the exact source of the image. Let me know if that's insufficient.
I added a publisher and removed the extra text.

Hope that handles all the remaining problems! —Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 13:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good now, so this can finally be passed as a GA. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]