Talk:Commontime (album)/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: MikeOwen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello! Good job on all of your work on Field Music articles: I'm really impressed at the amount of work put into it and how enjoyable reading the articles are. I've read the article, and will start the review tomorrow or the day after as I go through the article again. mike•owen ^discuss 20:40, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay, my schoolwork is taking up more time than I though. I'll start writing on a few sections and then continue on the rest later. Sorry about that. mike•owen ^discuss 10:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• No worries. Thanks for taking on the review! — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• "and encompassed a wide range" → "and encompasses a wide range" since the album is something that is available, not something like an event or a tour would finish that has an end date.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• "had a stronger" → "has a stronger" (same issue)
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• "including the original keyboardist" → "including the band's original keyboardist" since it makes it clearer.
  • Added. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Maybe include something about its commercial reception in the the header, maybe stating that it was the band's first Top 40 album.
  • Good call. Added. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

• In the genre section, it's best to have the genres in the infobox the same is listed in "Pop, funk, other genre influences" section in the first paragraph.
  • I added the missing genres. Additionally, I realized that in the GAN review for Open Here I was told the citation tags in the infobox were not necessary if they were cited in the body of the article already. Given that, I've removed them for now; if you disagree with this move, let me know and I can easily re-add them. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Nope, I think that's the right call. mike•owen ^discuss 20:27, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Additionally, I think that only the first genre needs to begin with a capital letter, but the rest can all be lowercase. mike•owen ^discuss 21:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
      • Works for me. Made that change. — Hunter Kahn 22:03, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Background

• "Music For Drifters" → "Music for Drifters"
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think that a colon would work better than a full stop at "released or participated in a number of solo works and collaborations."
  • Agreed. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• "referred to the common ⁴
  ₄ time signature" → "refers to the common ⁴
  ₄ time signature" since it is something that is still there, if you see what I mean, a bit like in my points in the lead.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 15:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Musical style and composition

Pop, funk, other genre influences

• "The album's songs encompassed" → "The album's songs encompass"
• Changed. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• "There are references to just about every genre you can think of here, from funk and R&B to classical and glam rock, all bound together with the Brewis’ usual wiry textures.": the source here apparently doesn't exist. If you can find where it's gone, that would be great, or find an archived version. Also wikilink the genres mentioned in the source.
  • Yeah, it appeared they changed the URL for it. I've updated the link. Also added the wikilinks to the genres. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• "indie pop"; "alternative rock"; "chamber pop": I'm not entirely sure if the "styles" section of AllMusic is reliable, since I think it's user-generated. I'm not entirely sure, but I'll look into it more. WP:RSMUSIC states that the genre sidebar on AllMusic is not reliable "as it is generated from a separate source from the prose," so you need to either find another source or remove the genres (except for the one where there are two sources listed).
  • I didn't know that, so it's good to know! I've added sources for the others, but had trouble immediately finding one for "alternative rock", so for now I've removed it. This article refers to the fact that they are often called alternative rock, but it might not tie it directly enough to Commontime to be used. Let me know if you think that one works; otherwise I'll just keep that genre out... — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, that would be right I think, since it isn't quite correlated with the album, but rather for the band as a whole. mike•owen ^discuss 22:52, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• "Britpop": the Daily Express is not a reliable source according to WP:RSPSOURCES
  • Didn't realize that either. I've removed all uses of that source (the only other thing I had to remove was the review blurb from the publication). I don't have another source for Britpop reference so I've removed it for now. This article mentions Britpop but wanted to run it by you for your opinion before adding it because 1) I wasn't sure if it was a reliable source and 2) it mentions Britpop in connection to one song more than the album as a whole, so I wasn't sure if you thought it would be an appropriate use? — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I think that it's a reliable source, but since it only mentions the one song, it doesn't really work for the whole album. So best just to leave it out unless you find something else. mike•owen ^discuss 22:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• "It featured progressive rock elements" → "It features progressive rock elements"
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• "and featured him on vocals" → "and feature him on vocals"
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• ""Same Name" featured" → ""Same Name" features"
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• ""Don't You Want to Know What's Wrong?" featured" → ""Don't You Want to Know What's Wrong?" features"
  • Fixed. I'm happy to keep making tense changes like this if you like, or if it's easier and you want to do it yourself over the course of your review, that's fine with me too. Whatever works! :) — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, that would be great! :) mike•owen ^discuss 22:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Hall & Oates, American number-one singles

• after "the music of Hall & Oates", source 38 is repeated twice.
  • Oops. lol Removed one of them. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• "with each other it" → "with each other over it"
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 21:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Unusual time signatures, vocal harmonies

• "works, Commontime featured unique" → "works, Commontime features unique." There are additional incidents of this in the section (2nd paragraph concerning "The Noisy Days are Over"
  • I've fixed this as well as a few other instances I've found. — Hunter Kahn 03:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• "unconventional rhythm": I can't find that in the source here.
  • Apologies, this should've been attributed to Sean Ward of The 405. I've fixed that now. — Hunter Kahn 03:13, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Guitars, strings, brass instruments

• "Ben Philpott described "The Morning is Waiting" as a "grand, luscious production..." → "Ben Philpott considered that "The Morning is Waiting" had "grand, luscious production..." since it is referencing its production and stuff, not the song.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• "A ballad," → remove the comma
  • The only reason I had a comma here at all was because WP:CITEFOOT says "citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods (full stops) and commas", and also because, while I agree the comma isn't necessary, I don't believe the sentence is grammatically correct with it there either. That being said, I don't feel strongly, so for now I've removed it. WP:CITEFOOT only suggests citation markers follow a full stop and doesn't require it so I think we're still OK, but if you think the comma should be re-added because of that, I'm fine either way. — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for telling me about that, I wasn't aware of it. I won't insist on removing the comma. mike•owen ^discuss 11:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
• "A Peter Brewis composition": I'm not entirely sure if the source exactly states that it is by Peter Brewis, since it's a bit vague and might have something different to do with Peter, like it might just be a song very special to him rather than one specifically composed by him. I might be stretching though.
  • I agree that the Quietus source is a bit vague on this, but the Observer source specifically states "Still, 'Noisy Days' is a Peter composition." — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• "begins with a slow guitar" → ""begins with a hazy guitar" since it's more in line with the source.
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• "shifting to an energetic tempo, and a" → "shifting to an energetic tempo and a"
  • This again was a comma for the sake of WP:CITEFOOT. I've kept this one in for now, but am willing to drop it if you want. — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• "alternating between synth-backed ballads, harmonized vocals, and soft piano interludes": The ballads bit of it seems a bit weird, considering it's one song.
  • I changed it to just "alternating between synths". — Hunter Kahn 23:34, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• "more examples of the band utilizing danceable grooves" → "more examples of the band utilising danceable grooves" since that is the usual British spelling (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/utilize)
  • Fixed it. — Hunter Kahn 22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Lyrics and themes

Parenthood and family

• ""The Morning is Waiting For You" is a lullaby Peter wrote to his young son." → "The Morning is Waiting For You" is a lullaby Peter wrote for his young son." (although this isn't much of a big deal, I just think it's better, especially since the sources say that, rather than to).
  • Yeah I think this is better. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• "line form" → "line from"
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
• "When Peter first played the song for his son, he was two years old, and did not like it" → "When Peter first played the song for his son, who was two years old, he not like it" (I just think the prose would be better like that)
  • Agreed. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Growing into middle age

• aging → ageing since that is the preferred spelling for Britain.
• "The song also includes tongue-in-cheek bits of advice" → "The song also includes tongue-in-cheek advice", since "bits of" doesn't quite seem necessary and is a bit unencyclopedic.
  • Good call. Changed that. — Hunter Kahn 22:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Politics

• favor → favour (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/favour)
  • Fixed this and a few other instances... — Hunter Kahn 02:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
• "experiencing joy and fun despite difficult political times is itself an act of political defiance" → "experiencing joy and fun despite difficult political times is in itself an act of political defiance", I think it reads better.
  • I agree. Made the change. — Hunter Kahn 02:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Other themes

• "Some songs on the album are about, in T. Cole Rachel's words," → "In T. Cole Rachel's words, some songs on the album are about" since I think that the original structure disturbed the flow of the sentence.
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• "Occasionally, the singer is questioning" → "Occasionally, the singer questions"
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• "bitter": I can't really see this in the source.
  • The source says "a tense conversation ... with an angry source." It doesn't explicitly say bitter, but I thought it was sort of implied. But I changed it from "bitter" to "angry", the actual word used in the source. Is that better? — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah I think it's best. mike•owen ^discuss 09:27, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Recording and production

• "because "it is a really esoteric sound"" → "because of its "really esoteric sound"" since it is a better wording even if it what was used during the interview.
  • Done. — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
• "sound". He" → "sound"; he" since the two sentences are pretty linked and removes the kind of suddenness of the sentence change.
  • Good call. Changed. — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Release

• "The first tour stop was at The Cluny in Newcastle on 25 February": the first source I take in good faith since it's offline, but I can't find anything in the second source that supports it.
  • Yeah, I'm guessing that second citation was just a misplaced tag that was leftover when I was adding and/or moving content around during the writing process. I've removed that citation since it doesn't reflect this statement. For the record, although I know you accepted the offline source in good faith, I did go back to look it up just to confirm it's stated there, and it is; here is the exact text from the article: "Field Music's national tour will begin on Thursday, Sheffield, 21, with two gigs at The Cluny in Newcastle on Thursday, February 25, and Friday, February 26, already sold out."
• "and included subsequent" → "and the tour included subsequent" since otherwise grammatically it would make the "first tour stop" the subject, which would be wrong.
  • Sounds good, changed it. — Hunter Kahn 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
• "increased number of backing vocals" → "increased number of backing vocals on the album" for greater precision.
  • Greater precision FTW! lol Made the change. — Hunter Kahn 16:32, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Sales

• No real issues here. Any further expansion would be welcome, but it's fine.
  • Any more feedback, MikeOwen? Seems like we're in the home stretch here! lol :D — Hunter Kahn 14:37, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Hello! Sorry about that delay, I've been on holiday but the place I was staying at had no WiFi, so I've been unable to work on it. Sorry about that. I'll continue the review (maybe complete it) tomorrow. Happy new year! mike•owen ^discuss 09:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Critical reception

Reviews

• "Bill Pearis of BrooklynVegan named Commontime his favourite album of 2016": I can't really see where it says this in the article.
  • If you scroll down to the bottom of the article, under the overall list, there are separate lists where the individual writers identify their favorites. Commontime is #1 on "Bill’s Top 20 LPs of 2016". — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks for pointing that out! :) mike•owen ^discuss 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "NARC Magazine writer Mark Corcoran called the album "sophisticated, intricate songwriting" and "another remarkable feat for Field Music"" → "NARC Magazine writer Mark Corcoran called the album "another remarkable feat for Field Music" and highlighted its "sophisticated, intricate songwriting"" since I think that the album itself isn't "sophisticated, intricate songwriting" but rather includes it.
  • Made the change. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "called the album "Wiry but" → "called the album "wiry but": needs to be lowercase since there is no new punctuation.
  • Oops. Fixed it. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "The Sun said the album pairs the "old spontaneous energy" of Field Music with "acute observations about everyday affairs" from the "older, wiser siblings"": The Sun is an unreliable source according to WP:RSPSOURCES.
  • I'm willing to remove it, but WP:RSPSOURCES does seem to indicate The Sun can be used for noncontroversial topics. I would think that applies here? — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    • That's a good point, but I think it would be safer just to remove it since I couldn't find much of value in the discussions about its use in music. I had a look at WP:ALBUMAVOID and the Daily Mail is listed as an unreliable reviewer, so I would guess that the same would apply for the Sun. mike•owen ^discuss 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Fair enough, I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 23:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "The Guardian writer Paul Mardles" → "The Observer writer Paul Mardles": review written for the Sunday version of The Guardian, The Observer (see to the left of the article title)
  • Changed. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Alexis Petridis, also of The Guardian," "Alexis Petridis of The Guardian": see above
  • Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "She also said the album" → "He also said the album": Petridis is male.
  • Oops. Fixed. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "Some reviews were more mixed, and even some critics who reviewed it positively felt the running time was slightly too long.": The latter clause seems somewhat unrelated to the rest of the paragraph. Maybe you could mention it in the previous one, and keep the first clause in this paragraph.
  • I think I've changed it to what you're looking for, but let me know. — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Should be fine 👍 mike•owen ^discuss 18:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
• "He wrote: at no point is it necessarily bad, but it is confusing"" → "He wrote: "at no point is it necessarily bad — but it is confusing""
  • Added the italics and en dash. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 17:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Prince tweet

• The archive to the 405 article doesn't seem to be working anymore. Would it be possible to find a different archived link for it? Otherwise this section is fine.
  • Unfortunately it looks like that website shut down before I was able to archive all the links as backups, and the Internet Archive and other sites don't seem to have backups for it, so I think it's dead for good. I've removed all uses of that citation from the article. — Hunter Kahn 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • I think I might have found it (https://web.archive.org/web/20160217091553/https://www.thefourohfive.com/music/review/field-music-commontime-145). Is this one the right one? mike•owen ^discuss 16:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
      • That's it! lol I've restored the content I removed and replace the old archive URL with this one. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Track listing

• No problems

Personnel

• No problems

Charts

• No problems

Final comments

• Overall I think you've done a great job of expanding and improving the article, so thanks a lot for that! Sorry about the long time it's taken for me to complete the review. The article seems to pass all six GA criteria (I was a bit concerned by the high copyvio percentage but I believe it is fine since most of the matches seem to be taken up by song name), it's very much readable, broad in coverage, insightful, stays focused, etc. I added a comment about the 405 reference, so once that's resolved the article should be good to pass. mike•owen ^discuss 16:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for sorting that out! I'll pass it now. Have a great evening! mike•owen ^discuss 16:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks Mike for the excellent and very thorough review! I know you had a lot going on that was demanding your time, so I appreciate you doing this! — Hunter Kahn 17:38, 2 January 2020 (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.