Talk:Thick as a Brick/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 11:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

• Let me return the favor of a GA review...Always liked JT, but don't know too much about them. Vanamonde (talk) 11:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

  @Ritchie333: I've been through the article once: ping me when you've dealt with my comments, I'm not going to bother putting this on hold. Vanamonde (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig's tool is clear, spotchecks come out negative.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   No extraneous material

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No issues with stability

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   Image license appears to be fine

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• The one image is licensed fine. A free-use image of the band might be nice.

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The music would also generally satirise" may be clearer as "intended to satirise..."

Gone with "He also intended to satirise" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I think we should stick with not more than two from among "stated", "later stated", and "has stated".

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The remainder of the suite was pieced together in the studio." This is a tad confusing after reading "came up with individual song segments, then wrote short pieces of music to link them together." in the previous paragraph

I've reworded this - the general gist is that the music was semi-improvised in the studio. I've done this - you basically only need to get one take of the backing track (or not even that if you can edit it together) and you've got it. Doesn't mean you can play it live! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not a fan of sentences beginning with "because", but I think that's mostly just me.

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• A general audience may not be aware of the Monty Python type of humour, so "They were fans of Monty Python, and this style of humour influenced the lyrics" could use a little more detail

I've clarified this - although I think most of the sources assumed if you were a fan of Tull, you knew exactly who Monty Python were, so they don't mention it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the band's previous album" seems an odd phrasing: I'd just say "band's 1971 album"

The problem with that is it doesn't place the album into the right context - the whole motivation for recording a single piece of music was because of the critical response of the album before it, which was only intended as a "regular" collection of songs. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• You could maybe mention what their previous work was classified as, in "contrasting with the group's earlier work."

Aqualung is a mix of rock, folk, classical and a few other bits, but in context here the important bit is "a collection of songs", so I've clarified that. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "Musical style" seems a bit brief, but maybe that's all the material readily available?

I've dropped a little more into this section, mostly dealing with lyrics. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "LP" should be linked at its first use, I think, and in the lede too perhaps?

Done. LP record is where our article is, so I've used that. Also, the article doesn't explicitly say that the album is one song split over two sides of vinyl, so I've added that. I'm sure had CDs been around, the whole piece would have been one track. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " so could a spoof one." instinctively, I feel this should be "so could a spoof", but I might be wrong.

I've reworded this Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• The second paragraph of "cover" is a bit repetitive in referring to Anderson's authorship of the review; is there a way to condense that?

I've trimmed it a bit. To be honest, it doesn't really need that much detail - the news stories are just silly made up nonsense. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm not the biggest fan of single-sentence paragraphs, and would like to see them merged with the previous/next paragraph, but if you're not happy about that I'm willing to let it go.

I think that's in the wrong place - moved Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "At some points, news and weather reports were read halfway through the show and even a man dressed head to toe in a scuba diver outfit would come onto stage and pass by as the band performed." I find this sentence a bit long, and strangely phrased, particularly the "even a man..."

Looks like I forgot to copyedit this bit. Fixed. I'll have a trim of everything else once I've addressed all the other issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• "the improved ability with the flute by Ian Anderson" Seems grammatically off to me, but might be wrong, once again

Trimmed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• Is there any information about how the title of the album originated?

I haven't found anything beyond sources saying it was just silly. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is a question not strictly related to the GA, but I wonder to what extend Gerald Bostock and Thick as a Brick - Live in Iceland substantive enough as standalone articles, and whether they wouldn't be better off merged here; this isn't hugely long.
• "American critic Robert Christgau crushed the album" bit colloquial, is it not?

"Disliked" will do here Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

• " AllMusic reviewer writes" something missing there, I think...

I think "AllMusic wrote" is generally considered acceptable Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "put Thick as a Brick as one of his favourite" something seems off here: "described"?

Copyedited Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Any reason we have a separate sub-section for one of the anniversary releases, but not the other? To me it would make sense to have just two subsections in that section: "original track listing" and "Special edition releases", combining the 25th anniversary, 40th, and "differences" subsections into one.

I've combined this together, renamed the section "reissues" and simplified things a bit. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• Are all the credits coming from the LP sleeve? is that worth mentioning?

They are, although unlike most LPs they're written from the POV of a local journalist eg : "in addition to his usual flute, acoustic guitar and singing roles, Ian Anderson expanded his musical virtuosity to violin, saxophone and trumpet" rather than an actual list Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• "The original Thick as a Brick of 1972 consists of only two long tracks comprising a single song, while Thick as a Brick 2 lists 17 separate songs merged into 13 distinct tracks (some labelled as medleys), although also all flowing together much like a single song." This sentence is a bit too long, IMHO

Why do we care about how long the original album is in a section about the sequel (not to mention we've already mentioned it earlier in the article)? Removed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:12, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

• I'm going to AGF on the host of music websites, since I don't know much about them.

The page with LP scans is technically a copyright violation. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:31, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Second run

Looking good, a few minor points on a second run:

• "Thick as a Brick was deliberately crafted in the style of a concept album and a general parody of the genre. " seems to me this should either be " and as a general parody of the genre", or "and a general parody of the genre of [insert parodied genre here]". Am I wrong?
• Can we find a good link for "suite" at its first use?
• Made some minor copy-edits, feel free to revert
• Can we find a link for "overdubs"?
• Optional: do we need the subtitle in the section title for the sequel?
• Avoid the sea of blue in the last body sentence.

I just went through and did a copyedit, trimming down a lot of stuff, so I think everything is addressed now. The article was in far worse shape than what I would normally send to GA. I recall working on it in order to get it onto the main page as part of OTD earlier this year, when it was largely unsourced and needed some serious cleanup, and obviously got to a point, forgot about it, then put it up for GA thinking I was finished. Anyway, should all be resolved now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

No worries. Looks good, passing now. Cheers. Vanamonde (talk) 17:06, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, cheers. I think the album's great, one of my favourites, and the cover is brilliant too - but I'm not sure anyone outside Britain would appreciate the humour. :-/ Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:08, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, reading this has certainly got me interested in the album, I'll probably listen to it the next time I've got a spare hour. Vanamonde (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)