Wikipedia:Peer review/Casey Abrams (album)/archive1

Casey Abrams (album)

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I mostly stick to writing articles about film and television, so on the rare occasions that I've decided to branch out and write an album article, I haven't fully understood how to best go about it. Could someone familiar with this topic take a look and let me know if it still needs some work? Ideally I'd like to nominate it for GA, but I have no idea whether that would be within reach or not.

Thanks, Jpcase (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At quick glance, I would say that the lead section could be shortened. Ideally four paras are used for really long articles. Otherwise, it looks fine as a GA. If you want someone good at music-related articles to review it further, why not invite an editor from the volunteers list. They're listed according to what subjects they review normally, and drop a neutral invitation saying that this is in the backlog. Good day, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review by Rationalobserver

This looks like some above average prose (nice work!), but I found a couple of minor nit-picks, which I'll list below.

Lead

City sounds can be heard in the background of some tracks.

"City sounds" was the first clicker that got my attention. I'm not sure what would be better, but maybe something like "ambient noises from the city", which I realize is wordier, but it's a start I think.

Your suggestion sounds good to me! I've gone ahead and changed it. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wal-Mart released a deluxe version of the album

Was this on a Wal-mart label, because if not I'd avoid the free plug.

If by "label" you mean "music label", then no - I don't think Walmart even has a music label. Walmart should certainly still be mentioned by name in the Promotion section, since it was the only store that carried this version of the album, but I've rewritten the sentence in the lead to simply say that this version "received a limited release". --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

were released as dual singles

I'm not sure what this means.

What I meant to get across is that the two songs were released as singles simultaneously, which isn't a very common occurrence. The one other time that I'm familiar with in which this happened was with the album David Cook. That article uses similar phrasing - see the second paragraph of the "Singles" section. Do you think that this is okay? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I've never written a music article, so I don't know all the conventions, but I couldn't help but think that "No. 4" should be "number four".

As mentioned above, music isn't my specialty either, but I feel like "No." is the way that I've seen it written most often. While I agree that "number" would be more formal, Billboard itself - see this article [1] - uses "No." --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

In January 2012, it was reported that Abrams had signed with Concord Records, the jazz label that Esperanza Spalding - one of Abram's musical inspirations - is a part of.

This is a really nice sentence except the last clause. I wish I had a ready idea as an alternative, but I don't right now. I'll write back if I think of one.

While I'm not much of a grammar expert, these three articles [2] [3] [4] (as well as several others that can be found through Google) indicate that the rule against ending a sentence with a preposition is actually a widely held misconception. All the same, if you think it would be better, perhaps I could say "[T]he jazz label to which Esperanza Spalding - one of Abrams' musical inspirations - is signed. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording

first time that Abrams had ever co-written with someone

Mention the co-writer here.

As the article goes on to detail, Abrams had quite a number of co-writers on this album. It would be unwieldy to mention them all in this one sentence. Would it better if I said "anyone" instead of "someone" or if I ended the sentence after the word "co-written"? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another location that had influence on the album was London.

Most of the prose here is pretty decent, but stuff like this jumps out at me as not great.

Ah, okay. I was trying to find a good way to transition from the previous paragraph (about the hills of Idyllwild) into the information about London, while emphasizing that the city had an influence on the writing and recording process. I thought that it would make the article flow a bit better, but I can see how it might sound informal. Would you suggest just cutting this out then? Or should I rewrite it? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

can't be sung about...every rock should be turned

Check your ellipses spacing per the MoS.

Thanks for pointing it out! I've seen people change the formatting on these before, without ever fully understanding what they were doing. I'll look into it soon. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He felt that recording in London "captured the wonder" and the "wanderlust" that he felt about the city.[15]

I'd paraphrase this so that it says he basically liked London. It's goofy to quote this. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll see what I can come up with. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, he has also hinted that conflict

Be careful you aren't using "however" in a lazy way.

Could you elaborate? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany

Work Sales & chart performance into the prose and eliminated the double headers: "Reception" and "Critical reception".

I thought that what I did here was standard formatting for a Music album. Was I mistaken then? --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

It's a nice piece overall, but there are lots of quotes that might not be adding all that much. Most of the prose is solid, but it's not the best it could be with a copyedit. It's passable, don't get me wrong but in places it feels mechanical and rigid, maybe cause of the loads of quotes, especially in the reception parts. I don't know that mush about FAC, but I think you will get hammered on unless you reduce the amount of quoted material. Good piece overall, though. Rationalobserver (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ugog Nizdast: @Rationalobserver: Thank you both for your comments! I hear what you're saying about the lead, Ugog. The paragraph count is just a guideline, but I'd be willing to cut things down if I knew what to remove. I feel like a certain amount of information from each section of the article should be discussed in the lead, but am not really sure which points are covered in more depth than is necessary. Let me know if either of you have any ideas on how to go about restructuring this. :)

I really appreciate your kind words about the prose, Rationalobserver. And your comment about certain parts coming across as "mechanical and rigid" doesn't surprise me. You're right; I tend to rely on quotes more than I should. GA is the goal for now; FA hadn't really even crossed my mind. But I'll definitely ask for a copyedit if you think that would help. If there are any specific quotes (in addition to the one you already mentioned above) that you think I should cut out, then I'll gladly work on them. Just let me know!

I've left some followup comments on specific points above. --Jpcase (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel it can be shortened. I think I may get at least some ideas (not necessarily good ones) for your lead section, I'll do that later. Here are some comments pertaining to the quotation problem. Otherwise, I don't see anything apparent stopping this at a GAR. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ugog Nizdast

Consider these areas where I think, the quotations can be replaced with normal paraphrasing. I feel these quotations don't add any extra value compared to plain normal paraphrasing.

"The tight schedule for releasing an album that is imposed on the winner would have placed more pressure on him than he would have liked.", maybe add "He felt that"? (even though "he would have liked" is present, doesn't it still state it in the pedia's voice?)
"..the "most musically talented contestant...", you can just say she praised him or called him the most talented.
"Instead, Abrams was able to spend as much time as he felt necessary to find "the right label and the right music". are the quotation marks necessary here? maybe "felt necessary to find the correct label and music".
"Abrams valued the "collaborative process" of working with other writers and feels that this is crucial to making music "fun"." This can certainly be paraphrased.
" He found this to be a unique experience, as the room was "totally open" and had windows." Again.
"advised to "reverse the chords of the chorus"" Again.
""Get Out" is Abrams' "heartbreak song", that he described as having "a very simple 'I hate you, but I love you' kind of vibe"." maybe paraphrased into "..he described it as having love-hate relationship _" or something? can't think of anything at the moment, how about you?
""He's got a stub instead of a tail", explained Abrams. "I think [that] is probably the coolest part...[it] is so funny because whenever someone comes home, if I come home or my mom or dad walks in, he gets really excited and starts shaking his little stub."" I very unfamiliar with the subject (forget this subject, I've rarely dealt with music-related articles) but this sounds like something that can be omitted. I don't know whether it is widely covered in the sources.
""I basically went there, having nothing but a will to play some music", he said." and ""I did have to fight for a couple things", Abrams said." Again, I think these two can be removed entirely but I could be wrong.
"Describing the album's genre as "organic focal", he placed heavy emphasis on melodies and harmonies - the "focal point" - while relying primarily on organic instruments, such as acoustic guitar,upright piano, and double bass." I didn't understand this sentence the first time. Could you reword? -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]