Talk:Virtual Self (EP)

Requested move 24 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page moved Virtual self ← Virtual Self → Virtual Self (EP) (non-admin closure)  samee  ^talk 07:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Virtual Self → Virtual Self (EP) – Virtual Self is an alternate name of Porter Robinson, and it should redirect to the artist instead. Lazz_R 20:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

• Support - Indeed, there should be an EP label for this page in case the actual 'Virtual Self' name will be notable enough to have its own artist page sometime later. Adjust the spelling for the redirected EP page please, it spells 'Vitual Self (EP)' rather than 'Virtual Self (EP)'. aNode (discuss) 02:47, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. And I hadn't noticed that typo (I have now corrected it). Lazz_R 12:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Support either way requires (EP). As to whether should redirect to artist, not sure that virtual self wouldn't be a better target. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agreed, virtual self should be the target. I did not know there was a disambiguation page. Lazz_R 12:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - Oppose per WP:PRECISE. Unless there are separate articles for the person and the pseudonym, the EP article should keep the name "Virtual Self", as it is the only article with this name. A hatnote at Porter Robinson indicating the name of the EP will properly direct people to the album article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment; While it may technically be the only article with this exact title, it's worth noting the entries in the disambiguation page. Lazz_R 18:53, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virtual Self (EP)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TechnoSquirrel69 (talk · contribs) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Good to see you on another Porter Robinson-related article, Skyshifter! I'll happily take this review. I'll probably have my first big round of comments for you this evening (PT), but may take until tomorrow morning. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Result

Citation numbers from this revision.

I was a bit taken aback when I first saw how many citations there were to the first few references during my first skim. That surprise gradually turned to concern as I realized that many of those sources were interviews. If I'm counting right, citations 1–5 and 7–9 are all interviews. As primary sources, interviews should generally be used sparingly, and only to verify uncontroversial descriptions of fact or a person's claims about themselves, in line with the primary sources and biographies of living persons policies respectively. While some of these sources are a mixture of quotes from Robinson and some interpretive statements from the publishing journalist, there are simply too many of them to be acceptable in this case. Additionally, citation 6 is an article written by a Forbes contributor — not a staff member — making the source not reliable.

Taking all of this into account, I tried to see if these issues could be handled within this review. I want to note that, going through the article and highlighting statements verified by the sources I mentioned above, well over half of the prose had to be removed or rewritten in some way. This includes entire sections, such as § Background and the majority of § Concept and inspiration. Given the volume of work that it's going to take to clean up these issues, this nominee quick-fails under criterion 2b of the good article criteria; I'm sorry.

That being said, I still have some feedback in other areas that I hope will help you improve. I went through the lead in particular with a fine-tooth comb, as that's the one section least likely to change too much in an overhaul. I'm confident that it's only a matter of time until you can bring this article back to GAN, stronger than ever! I'm more than happy to answer any follow-up questions you have from this review, feel free to ping me on the article's talk page! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Some detailed comments

• 2017, through → 2017 through
• ...maintain its sound or work on a follow-up. This is a confusing statement with no prior context given. Maybe rephrase as something along the lines of "...create a follow-up work that matched its quality."?
• plotting → developing or planning. That should make it sound less like Robinson is considering a crime.
• doesn't → does not
• "...in the same shows." should be singular, and I would probably go with "...in the same performance." for clarity.
• with inspirations from early 2000s genres
• tried to recreate → recreated
• Virtual Self's visuals present cryptic messages and a mysterious atmosphere. What's the source for this statement? Even if this is sourced, it probably needs to be attributed to the author.
• "Two singles were released" needs elaboration. Promotional singles? Before or after the EP?
• UTOPiA SySTEM → Utopia System
• charted on the Dance/Electronic → charted on Billboard's Dance/Electronic
• I'd advise going through Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice and adjusting the section headers so they more closely match the style used for other album articles.
• The quotes in § Critical reception are a bit too long for my liking. I'd recommend paraphrasing them a bit.
• § Release history seems rather redundant as there was only ever one release and the information is covered in other parts of the article.
• I'd like to see translated titles for the Japanese sources. At the very least, they should be marked using the |lang= parameter.

Images and media

• Virtual Self EP cover art.jpg is a non-free image used appropriately to identify the subject of the article.
• Porter Robinson Chicago 2014.jpg and Virtual Self NYC.jpg are freely licensed images on Commons.
• Virtual Self - Ghost Voices.ogg and Virtual Self - Eon Break.ogg are non-free audio files that comply with the music samples guideline and are used appropriately in the article.

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.

Quick fail

@TechnoSquirrel69: yeah, I disagree with this review. I'm using interviews where Robinson talks about his inspiration for Virtual Self... in sections talking about his inspirations for Virtual Self. Otherwise there's not much to talk about his inspirations. If there are interviews where Robinson states his inspirations it doesn't make sense to resort to secondary source interpretations only. I made the sections "Background" and "Concept and inspiration" almost entirely of interviews and his process on building Virtual Self, while Composition and songs is mostly about what secondary sources said about the EP. There's still over 20 non-interview sources being used in the article. The Forbes article is an interview and I'm strictly using Robinson's words, so it's a valid use. I don't see what's the problem with the usage of interviews then. I mean, most "Production"-like sections need to be coming from interviews, no? It seems harsh that I would need to remove or rewrite entire sections in this case. At least, I would like to ask for more opinions about this case. Skyshiftertalk 11:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought we might disagree on this point at least a little bit; after all, I don't think anyone would submit an article as a GAN unless they believed it was ready. That being said, I'm afraid I can't retract my review, and all of the reasons I provided for the fail still apply. I want to note that your opinion that it "doesn't make sense to resort to secondary source interpretations only" is fundamentally misaligned with Wikipedia policy. Editors are cautioned against using primary sources to verify any non-trivial information, and the primary sources policy highly discourages using them for any substantial section of an article. When I'm personally writing articles, I seriously question every single use of a primary source, trying to substitute them with secondary sources if I can, and using them only to the most minimal extent if I can't. I also want to bring up two points that I didn't mention in my review in the interest of keeping things focused:

• Articles cannot give undue weight to information which doesn't appear in reliable sources at all. Again, articles should always turn to secondary sources when determining the proportion that a particular viewpoint is emphasized. My interpretation of this policy is that if something does not appear in any reliable sources, it should not appear in Wikipedia. I understand that that's a pretty extreme conclusion, and I have compromised with another editor once when we disagreed on that point, but entire sections built entirely from primary sources is something I can't compromise on.
• To add in more information taken exclusively from interviews is to bring an article closer to fancruft. Wikipedia is not the Porter Robinson Fandom wiki, and follows a different set of standards. While I'm sure Robinson has said a lot of interesting things about how he wrote Virtual Self, most of that content does not meet the standard for inclusion in Wikipedia.

I understand if you still disagree with me in some way, and so welcome if you want to advertise this discussion for a third opinion. Let me know if you have any other questions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

@TechnoSquirrel69: The biggest thing here is that we're talking about a concept/composition section. (for other articles, it may be called development, production, etc.) All the time I spent on Wikipedia (including in Portuguese Wikipedia when translating articles from here), interviews were perfectly accepted in these kinds of sections, and they are quite common when referencing this kind of section. So, while primary sources shouldn't be used to base an entire article, I think it is fine to completely base sections such as concept, production or development in interviews, and I've seen quite a few of those, including in articles I've promoted myself. When you say "When I'm personally writing articles, I seriously question every single use of a primary source, trying to substitute them with secondary sources if I can, and using them only to the most minimal extent if I can't", I also do that for other sections, but I fail to see the problem in sections such as Development, where you usually need to enter the mind of the creator of the work to understand how it was developed (and in turn, usually needing to use interviews).

An article I promoted some time ago is Iteration (album), which has three entire sections based only on interviews or primary sources. To a lesser extent I could mention Era Extraña (Background and production, except the very last line). Using other topics as examples, this was not promoted by me, but Undertale is not far from FAC and its Development section is entirely based on interviews, with the exception of the last few paragraphs of "Music". I could also mention another article I promoted, Bomba Patch, which is mostly based on three articles that are a mix of interview and independently written content. To mention another Porter Robinson thing even, Flicker (song)'s Composition section is entirely based on interviews or primary sources apart from two sentences.

I can see that maybe adjusting or removing a bit of the content could be done, but I completely disagree that I'd need to rewrite or remove entire blocks of content (or as you mentioned, half of the prose). In that case, I would like to ask for more opinions regarding the article's usage of primary sources. Skyshiftertalk 00:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I see no reason to differentiate our approach to sourcing depending on which part of the article is in question. The quality standards for a development section are the exact same as for a critical reception or a thematic analysis section. You've given a few other articles as examples of interviews being used, and while I'm not going to analyze and respond to each one of them, I will say that I very rarely use other articles as models for interpretation of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. I mean no disrespect whatsoever to the editors working on those articles, but Wikipedia — by its nature — is not reliable; it's always possible that some oversight could have led to content that is not up to standard, even in featured articles. While I don't defer to editorial decisions made on other articles, I will defer to consensus, and so want to ask if you know of any previous discussions or guidelines that I might have missed which support your arguments. And like I said earlier, I have no objections to you inviting another editor to provide another opinion in this discussion. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:45, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that yes, context matters; otherwise, "Plot" sections wouldn't exist, for example: usually, they are entirely sourced to the work itself. I've seen some recent FAs that had "development"-like sections that were at very least ~80% sourced to interviews; that's why I think your view on primary sources is too harsh, especially regarding these types of sections. I thought a higher usage of interviews in these types of sections were widely accepted as fine. Anyway, I believe we won't reach a consensus on this. I'm not sure on how to ask for other opinions, however. Is WP:3O the most appropriate? Should I just ask on WikiProject Music? Skyshiftertalk 01:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Plot sections are explicitly exempted from the usual need for reliable inline citations in guidelines like MOS:PLOTSOURCE, as they're considered (generally) uncontroversial summaries of the works they're describing. I've never seen any guidelines calling out development or production sections, but, again, I would be happy to be proven wrong if you know something I don't. Anyways, I think that line of argument is getting a bit off-topic, and it might be more productive to focus specifically on this article and my review. 3O would work, but you could also request a reassessment of my review at WT:GAN. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Posted at WT:GAN. Skyshiftertalk 01:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Since this has been posted at GAN, I won't be providing a 3O here. I might post over at GAN. Additionally, @Skyshifter, you should feel free to open a new nomination for this article, and you can then point the new reviewer to this discussion. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@Voorts: Thank you. I wasn't sure if a renomination was the correct way to do it, but in that case, I'll add secondary sources to Background (along with some other adjustments I'm planning) and then renominate while mentioning this discussion. Skyshiftertalk 21:39, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Chronology

TechnoSquirrel69 Right now it seems that the Virtual Self alias was a one-off / ad hoc thing, so I think Porter Robinson should be the chronology there. If Robinson releases more things under Virtual Self, then I think the chronology should be Virtual Self indeed. It is strange to have absolutely nothing in the chronology there. Skyshiftertalk 21:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember reading a discussion in the archives of WT:ALBUMS about works generally not being included in discographies if released under an alias, unless there was a compelling argument to be made for an exception using reliable sources. I'm not finding it at the moment, but I'll keep looking when I have more time. I see where you're coming from here, but given that both Porter and the majority of reliable sources consider Virtual Self to be a clearly separate side project (as well as every other source calling Nurture Porter's "sophomore album"), I don't see why we need to make that exception here. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 02:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Virtual Self (EP)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 04:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

It's great to see some Porter Robinson noms; I couldn't help myself! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Well-written

I quite like the article's structure and balance. I especially like the short paragraphs and, specifically, the general "Concept and inspiration" info which then goes deeper into the production and visuals. I did a copyedit, and I'm left with only a few comments:

• "an alias with its visuals" and "sound inspired by early 2000s" could be construed as different ideas, perhaps: "an alias whose visuals and sound were inspired by the early 2000s".
• The above point might be moot because of this: Robinson's inspiration of early 2000s aesthetics is mentioned three times in the lead in similar ways. I think "an alias whose visuals and sound were inspired by the early 2000s" is redundant considering the sentence afterwards.
  • Reworded
• melodic-based — remove "based" or say, perhaps: "his 2012 song 'Language' featured a more melodic sound".
  • Done
• something for him to resist — this feels too indirect, like someone else is making him resist his old sound, perhaps: "something he tried to resist".
  • Done
• to release something similar to a follow-up album — he described Virtual Self as a follow-up so I would reword this as: "to release a similar follow-up album".
  • Done
• However, he still needed to gather dynamic graphics — the "However" feels odd, is this really a contrasting phrase? It feels more constrictive.
  • Reworded
• he still needed — when put this way, it is unclear whether he did this or not.
  • Reworded
• He then directly referenced — to who, the video artists?
  • Reworded
• A music video was released, containing cryptic messages. — a music video of which song?
  • "Eon Break". Fixed.
• "Released" is used a lot in the "Promotion and release" section, you could do something like: "On January 11 that year, a music video for "Particle Arts" was released, alongside one for 'Ghost Voices' on February 28 and one for 'Key' on April 18."
  • That is really nice. Done.
• said the Virtual Self alias was a "high concept musical nerdiness" — this is a descriptor rather than a noun. You could say something along the lines of: "described the Virtual Self project as 'high concept musical nerdiness'".
  • Done

Verifiable with no original research

In terms of the use of secondary sources for which TechnoSquirrel quickfailed the article, I'm gonna steal the words of voorts, I agree with you in part. Of course, if good secondary sources could be used for the "Concept and inspiration" section, then I would encourage that, as I did in my review of Corey Olsen, where we rewrote and referenced most of the "Academic career" section. However, this is a different case. The vast majority of material about the EP's production only exists in interviews. And I don't have many issues with reliability, as the article only uses these for his opinion. But still, I respect TechnoSquirrel's commitment to quality sourcing, and I think his suggestions have been very helpful to the "Background" section.

For copyvio, the quotes are sharp and paraphrasing is used well. Earwig shows a good score of 36% (the first URL was a copypaste of the article, no issues). And to go into detail about reliability, although iFlyer and Hypebeast are questionable, they're basically 10% interview questions and 90% answers. The Forbes piece is written by a contributer, but it's only cited once and for Robinson's statements. Dancing Astronaut is not the pinnacle of quality, but its use is uncontroversial, mainly for the date of the tweet. However:

• I would replace the DJ Mag Asia source with this EDM.com source, it's still not great, but it's a little better (and still, it's an uncontroversial claim).
  • Cameron, John (January 22, 2020). "Porter Robinson Announces Virtual Self Artbook and Chloma Fashion Collab". EDM.com. Archived from the original on January 30, 2020. Retrieved March 19, 2024.

Yeah the Dancing Astronaut one is a source I wouldn't like to use; in fact, I've asked WP:RSP about electronic music sources, including EDM.com and Dancing Astronaut, and the result wasn't great. Indeed, its use was just for the date of the tweet, since the Billboard source was pubished much later, though I could add the Billboard one alongside the tweet itself. DJ Mag Asia is a branch of DJ Mag, so I assumed it would be reliable, but they aren't the same magazine, so possibly not. So honestly, I don't think DJ Mag Asia or EDM.com are good. For now I will add the EDM.com source alongside the DJ Mag Asia one; however, I plan to go to FAC in the future, so I might need to remove them if FAC reviewers don't find them reliable enough. Skyshiftertalk 20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Good idea: I imagine the tweet would be fine as a primary source. And I'm not sure how I missed DJ Mag Asia being a branch, forgive me! (Admittedly, it seemed like a blog at a glance, and I haven't found a mention of the parent company.) I believe it's enough for GA, but yeah, it might need some consideration for FAC. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added the tweet, replacing Dancing Astronaut, and removed the EDM.com source, as I believe DJ Mag Asia is superior for being a branch of DJ Mag. Skyshiftertalk 21:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Spot-check

• Lhooq, Michelle (2018-02-18). "Porter Robinson's ambitious, human Virtual Self". The Fader. Archived from the original on September 6, 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  • Wow, looks good Y
• Ochoa, John (2018-02-15). "Porter Robinson: DJ Mag North America cover feature". DJ Mag. Archived from the original on March 15, 2018. Retrieved 2023-11-26.
  • Looks good as well Y
• Miller, Isabella (2022-05-18). ""I Don't Take That Lightly" Porter Robinson Interviewed". Clash. Photography by Rachel Lipsitz. Archived from the original on September 6, 2023. Retrieved 2023-09-06.
  • Looks good Y
• Bein, Kat (2018-03-07). "Six new songs you need to know this week (05/03/18)". BBC. Retrieved 2023-12-17.
  • Just genre stuff, but looks good Y
• Sherburne, Philip (2018-01-03). "Virtual Self: Virtual Self EP Album Review". Pitchfork. Archived from the original on 2018-01-03. Retrieved 2018-02-03.
  • Looks good Y

Broad in its coverage

I've done a search for sources, and I'm quite confident that the article adresses all the major aspects.

Neutral

No issues on this front.

Stable

No recent content disputes or edit wars.

Illustrated

All images are relevant, the comparison of the Pathselector and Technic-Angel songs is clever. The first tour image is correctly labeled as Creative Commons, while the DDR and second tour image are own works. The album cover and sound samples have satisfactory fair use rationales (the samples are fine for the EP article, at least).

Summary

A lovely article once again! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Averageuntitleduser: Thank you for all the compliments throughout the review :) (and your copyedits!) Everything has been responded to! Skyshiftertalk 20:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Amid the sourcing comments, I am happy to pass this article! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 21:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 10:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Porter Robinson listened to excerpts of over 100,000 songs in two years to create his EP Virtual Self? Source: Lhooq, Michelle (2018-02-18). "Porter Robinson's ambitious, human Virtual Self". The Fader. Archived from the original on September 6, 2023. Retrieved 2023-11-24.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/WFOR-TV

Improved to Good Article status by Skyshifter (talk).

Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Skyshiftertalk 23:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC).

• QPQ done (only one required). No image. Hook is interesting and inline cited to Fader which, for purposes of music, is WP:RS. Article achieved GA status today, March 20, so is new enough. Article is long enough and NPOV. If I had my druthers I'd change "over" to "more than" but that's neither here nor there. Earwig returns 49% - on a further evaluation these are mostly false positives due to review quotes. The one exception is this phrase - ""by American electronic music producer Porter Robinson under the alias Virtual Self" - which, as far as I can tell, is inverse copyvio by a WP clone from the original, pre-GA article, so should be good. Looks great! Chetsford (talk) 04:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Pre-FAC

Hey @Heartfox and Dylan620: I'd like to know if you have any suggestions for improving the article before I bring it to FAC again. Skyshiftertalk 17:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)