Talk:The Blackest Beautiful

Loniel Robinson Comment

Loniel's only mentioned twice in the article, so why is he listed in the lead paragraph? If he is that notable, shouldn't be also be in the personnel credits? -AngusWOOF (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Funk

So I just want to weigh in the addition of funk. I'm not doubting that this is influenced by funk, and as you state, critics note as it as an influence, but I don't think it should be in the infobox because it hasn't been described it as a straight up funk album. I'm totally cool with having it in the article where it's mentioned, but I think it would mis-lead a reader to think it's a Funk album if they were just reading the infobox. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, this album is not a straight-up funk album or even predominantly funk, but neither is it straight-up post-hardcore. When people look at an info box they usually take the first genre to know what an album predominantly sounds like while the others just cover that there are other elements at play. I feel it wouldn't be representative of what letlive. do on this album to just put post-hardcore and that would actually be the misleading decision (personally of course). But above my personal opinion, which I know holds not sway on Wikipedia, funk being cited felt far to common to not be included into the infobox. Jonjonjohny (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd disagree as I often just see the genres listed alphabetically. The infobox instructions don't actually state how to list genres appropriately either. But my suggestion would be to not have funk in the infobox, but in the lead of the article be sure to talk about how critics noted the funk influence on the album. Influence doesn't place it in the genre, but just listing it on it's own suggests the album might sound like Zapp or something. Critics seem to note the "funk influence" more than it being a funk album straight-up. I just woke up and this sentence might be a bit weird, but I think you know what I'm getting at. Right? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been a bit and I have not heard any news from you. If there is nothing else to add, i'll assume consensus and remove funk per my statements above. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been on the whole absent from wiki, I've struggled to gather the motivation to edit as real life stuff has fallen into motion. I'm still adamant on my position, as the quotes used directly reference funk as a part of the style as much as punk rather than just an influence. I just think only putting post-hardcore is reductionist, It's like how the London Calling article had punk and reggae next to each other. (it currently has post-punk instead, but it's notable that there is dispute behind the generalisation). Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Since we've kind of hit a stalemate, I'll ask for others to weigh in from various wikiprojects. Hopefully we can come to some solution. Cheers! Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Remove Funk unless it can be proven that it is a predominant genre used by multiple/many reliable sources. Funk should certainly be mentioned, but more in the "Sound" "Composition/Music" type section, in prose. Not the infobox. Sergecross73 msg me 01:25, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
• Remove Funk as per the logic supplied by Sergecross73 and Andrzejbanas. Having "funk" in the infobox could be misleading to the casual reader IMO, but it is absolutely correct to discuss the funk influence/styles in the appropriate section of the article. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 12:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

As per the consensus I have removed the other genres. Jonjonjohny (talk) 18:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Review box

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide#Album_ratings_template, "Include no more than ten reviews in table form. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source and keeping a neutral point of view. For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews.". Currently we have 13, instead of removing random ones, I thought we should discuss what stays and what goes. My first nomination would be to keep the ones that were in print opposed to online ones. But I think that would still only get rid of one or two, when we need to get rid of three. Thoughts? Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think perhaps Allmusic, Clash Music and This Is Fake DIY could be removed, as you said, not printed sources, but also some of the remaining ones are either newspapers or a diverse collection of music magazines. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd personally swap Allmusic with Sputnik as Allmusic has stronger writers who have worked for other material. This is Fake DIY should definiately be one of the first on the chopping block though. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you, I need to correct some of the issues the article's copy-editor pointed out, I'll crop down the list in that edit. Jonjonjohny (talk) 10:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

So the list is back at 13, i'll remove some again. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Blackest Beautiful/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 03:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   No copyvio's that I detected through Earwig's tool.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "... still debuted in the United States at number 74 on Billboard 200 and number six on its Hard Rock Albums, with nearly five thousand copies sold." - Re-write as "still debuted in the United States at number 74 on the Billboard 200 and number six on the Hard Rock Albums chart, with nearly five thousand copies sold."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   The lead states that this was the first album with Lionel Robinson, but the recording and production sections says that Lionel only joined after the album's release.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "One of the reviewers considered grouping it as pop record due to its clear, melodic structure,[22] while others grouped it with punk rock,[3][6][23] soul,[24] funk and showing 'glimpses' of other music styles including Afrobeat, electronica and jazz.[25]" - Re-write as "Mike Diver of Clash considered it pop record with clear, melodic structure,[22] while others grouped it with punk rock,[3][6][23] soul,[24] and funk, as well as displaying 'glimpses' of other music styles including Afrobeat, electronica and jazz.[25]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Terry Bezer said the album has 'as much in common with funk as punk',[21] and also that the album features 'the musical dexterity and reckless abandon of razor-edged funk'.[6]" - Re-write as "Terry Bezer in Front found that the album has 'as much in common with funk as punk',[21] and wrote in Metal Hammer that the album features 'the musical dexterity and reckless abandon of razor-edged funk'.[6]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   With the proposed the re-write above, this following sentence should be updated: "Terry Bezer, a writer for Front magazine..." - change to simply "Bezer... ."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "cited three primary albums as influences on the album" - re-write as "cited three albums as primary influences on the The Blackest Beautiful"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Bezer said that it was possessing 'Prince levels of funked up cool'.[16] - Re-write as "Bezer wrote that the track possesses 'Prince levels of funked up cool'.[16]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "The album's lyrics are described as "politically, socially and personally conscious",[25] with themes like: corporate greed, racism and growing up in a broken home.[18]" - re-write as "The album's lyrics are described as 'politically, socially and personally conscious',[25] incorporating themes such as corporate greed, racism and growing up in a broken home.[18]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Channing Freeman of Sputnikmusic said the songs lack the same immediacy in comparison to those on Fake History, however, they have more longevity.[37]" - Re-write as "Channing Freeman of Sputnikmusic said while the songs lack the same immediacy in comparison to those on Fake History, they have more longevity.[37]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   Move Freeman's comments on the album lyrics up to the rest of his review.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "However, Dave Simpson for The Guardian criticized the "adolescent, cliched lyrics", especially from the track "The Priest and Used Cars".[20]" - Re-write as "However, Dave Simpson, writing for The Guardian, criticized the album's "adolescent, cliched lyrics", especially from the track 'The Priest and Used Cars'.[20]"

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Follows MOS standards.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   Wilce, Tamsyn (October 17, 2013). "LIVE REVIEW: letlive., Night Verses, Electric Ballroom 17/10/2013". Bring The Noise. Retrieved November 6, 2013. - This wikilink redirects to the Public Enemy song.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   Some publications are missing publisher info. Some publications are not italicized, even though they are print.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   "Footnotes" is the title of two headings in the reference sections - perhaps call one "notes" and the other "citations"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:

   Article is well supported with citations to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   C. No original research:

   All content is verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Sticks to the major aspects, all major aspects covered.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   B. Focused:

   Focused, not unduly long.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fair representation, not promotional, reflects critical consensus.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   Stable, no ongoing conflicts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   The concert photo is released under Creative Commons, and the album cover is used within fair use policy.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   Sound files are also included, which this GA review template doesn't include. The two files are used correctly per fair use guidelines.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Instead of saying "as the key reason for letlive.'s chaotic and primal live performances," I think "as the key force behind for letlive.'s chaotic and primal live performances" is much better. Also, and more important to this GA review, the band name should not be italicized.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

   For the second sound file caption, "Track 7 and single 'Younger' has been used by critics to highlight letlive's "staggering dynamics, brain-burrowing melodies and intelligent production tricks".[17]" could be better re-written as "the single 'Younger', the album's seventh track, highlight letlive's "staggering dynamics, brain-burrowing melodies and intelligent production tricks".[17]"--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

7. Overall: Several minor issues with the prose, and a few other minor issues.

   Pass or Fail:

   I will make a further note on the prose. The article, apart from what I've noted in this review, meets GA criteria. However, for featured status, the prose still needs significant work. One major issue, which is a pain, is that the article mixes British and American English. It uses American spelling and dates, but includes some elements of British grammar. In American English, bands are referred to in the singular - "it" and "its" - unless the name is a plural (e.g. The New York Dolls). Since letlive. is singular, terms such as "they," "are," and "their" need to be made singular. If the statement is about the members collectively, that can use plural terms, but only if "band members" is specified. This will not affect the GA, so I'd encourage editors to address my GAR concerns first. However, after that is done, I'd suggest rectifying this issue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe my latest edit follows the amendments suggested here. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I did a minor copyedit. I believe that the article now meets GA criteria. Passed.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)