Talk:A Meeting by the River/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: Hekerui (talk · contribs) 18:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for starting this article and improving it so much. I have listened to many recordings by Bhatt, including this one, so I was happy to find it in the GAN-list (sitting already too long). The citation style is excellent (book or magazine references with page number don't need dates when they were retrieved, but they don't hurt either).

A few questions/suggestions:

Infobox

• FUR okay

Lead

• "created and Bhatt himself" ->(wrong word/"himself" redundant) "created by Bhatt" (I assume?)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Following its release, the album reached a peak ..." -> vague, albums can only possibly chart after release, either exact date of peak should be given or "following its release" should be left out (also, why not simply "peaked"?)

Done. Now reads "The album peaked at number four..." (Also updated wording in Chart performance section.) --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Composition

• The image shows Bhatt in 2006, not 2009.

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• why start with a reviewer opinion on the style? the content that follows in the passage describes the live nature well enough

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• there is a love for gerund - the formulations don't have to be changed but other formulations are more straightforward

I am not expert writer; feel free to improve! --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• another instance of "created and Bhatt himself"

Done. Now reads" created by Bhatt." --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• naming Gioffre first in the sentence about the Mohan veena implies that the whole sentence is Gioffre's analysis, but a Chicago Tribune source by someone else is cited, too

Done. Moved Allmusic citation mid-sentence. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• Plasketes book does not state that he heard ICM "previously", but names 1993, which conflicts with the recording date - is the recording date source correct or the Plasketes book? looks like a possible mistake by Plasketes to me

I, too, interpreted this as a mistake by Plasketes. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "just half an hour" ->(vague, unencylopedic) "half an hour"

Done. Now reads "less than one hour" -- let me know if you have a better suggestion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "liner notes" is, I think, a common word that does not need wikilinking (also "reveal" sounds unencyclopedic - liner notes state)

Done and done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "create new music by combining musicians from different cultures" -> can be reformulated in own words without relying on quoting the source, quotations make sense when it is important to reiterate the exact wording of the source

Done. Now reads: "... Alexander's first attempt to produce new music through collaborations between musicians from different cultures." --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "one of the goals he had in mind" ->(redundant) "one of his goals"

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Bhatt's playing is ..." -> name who makes that statement (Plasketes)

Done. Now reads: Author George Plasketes described Bhatt's playing as "highly nuanced" while Cooder performs in a more "loose-jointed, slip 'n' slide style". --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "According to Gioffre, Cooder and Bhatt utilize ..." - one thing I learned reading GANs/FACs is that "utilize" sounds cumbersome/inflated and should not be used, "use" is better

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• why use "exhibiting" in that sentence? that sentence could me more plain and clear with a simple word like "show"

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "... both in an alternating fashion and in unison" - "both" is redundant

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "'Longing' exhibits a structure similar to ..." - another "exhibit" that should be replaced

Done("has"). --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "one of the musical modes in Indian classical music" - you took that from the raga article in good faith, but it doesn't say much since it doesn't explain what a mode is and could be left out altogether - you will notice the third paragraph in the raga article, added by me, does a better job explaining (I'm biased there, of course, and there is no need to use it here)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "elaborate squiggling asides" and "swooping nosedives" - it should be noted who described Bhatt's playing as such

Done. Now reads: Author Tom Moon noted that Cooder takes the lead on the hymn "Isa Lei" as Bhatt contributes "elaborate squiggling asides" and "swooping nosedives". --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• why quote so much about the 2011 music festival performance and not rephrase what the source says? too many Wiki articles have copyright issues, we best keep use of copyrighted material at a minimum and use our own words

This is the only quote I could find from Bhatt about this material, and I feel that its inclusion works well within the article. I am happy to amend the article if you feel it is necessary or have a specific suggestion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "... working with Cooder to be his 'most special" collaboration'" - is this "to be" needed here?

Done. Not sure, but I went ahead and removed "to be" as requested. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Reception

• "... their respected instruments." - is that "respective"? even if so, I think the word is redundant

Done. Replaced with "respective". --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "He considered the musical interplay ... to be ..." - I think "he described the musical interplay ... as" would be closer to the source, no? we can't know what Gioffre "considers"

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "one of those few cross-genre albums ..." - again, a longer quotation from the Gioffre source that I think could be rephrased easily

Now reads: He described the musical interplay between the musicians as "nothing short of astounding" and the album as rare instance in which the listener "never feels for a second that there is some kind of fusion going on". Better? Not sure if "instance" needs to be replaced by a different noun? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have the same concern for the next two sentences on the Allmusic review which are mostly a quote

I think these two sentences are the most effective (compliments to Gioffre). Again, I can amend the article if necessary, but I don't know that I share the same concern. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• the Chicago Tribune review is pieced together from review words, why not rephrase that in one's own words?

I removed one quoted phrase. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance and recognitions

• recognition should be singular

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "Following its release, ..." - see comment from the lead

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "... was presented with Grammy awards at the 52nd Grammy Awards ..." - reads redundant, could be rephrased better ("won at the 52nd Grammy Awards" or something similar perhaps?)

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "in conjunction" - why not use "jointly" or something else more plain and clear?

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

• "covered independent music between the January 29, 1994 and January 21, 1995 issues" - I don't understand why the time period is emphasized

For one, I wasn't sure if the "Top Indie World Music Albums" list was an official chart based on sales or if it was based on the author's opinion. If the data is based on sales, I felt it was important to include the dates associated with the data. If you have a suggestion here, it would be appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

External links

• I'm not sure that jazz.com link should be featured. Is jazz.com a reliable source? Is this review done by a staff writer or a volunteer?

Based on this page I would guess a volunteer but there also appears to be a review process. I don't see any harm keeping the link, but perhaps I am just more of an inclusionist (especially when it comes to articles with limited material). --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I put the article on hold for now. Hekerui (talk) 13:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you SO MUCH for taking time to offer such a constructive and thorough review. Your help is very much appreciated. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I added the India portal box to the External links sections. If you are aware of any links that would be appropriate for a See also section, feel free to let me know and I could move the Portal box there. I did removed "Indian classical music" from the article (raga sentence), so that is one possibility. Thoughts? --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Response

• I gladly accept the rationale for keeping some of the quotes (my suggestions are always just that, and I hope you didn't feel you had to assuage me with the changes).
• I'm not sure about the Top Indie World Music Albums either. Perhaps they chose the independent albums from the Top World Music Albums chart to compile this, similar to how the Independent Albums chart is created nowadays? In absence of clarity we might as well keep this as it is.
• When it comes to reformulation please make sure you are not merely replacing words in the source with synonyms, but reformulate so you can't be accused of close paraphrasing. Check my attempt to rewrite "never feels for a second that there is some kind of fusion going on" - I only got rid of the flourishes with our good old Wiki summary style.
• When it comes to a "see also" section, if it gets created at some point, one could naturally link West Meets East by Ravi Shankar and Yehudi Menuhin (I also saw it mentioned in a review you cited).
• Lastly, good job expanding this article and finding all the sources!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hekerui (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:00, 6 October 2011 (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.