Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II/GA2

GA Review

Passed. czar 00:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Beachweak (talk · contribs) 21:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czar (talk · contribs) 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Note that another editor previously claimed this review but went inactive before starting—see the page deletion logs.)

This article would need much expansion from the Weidenbaum 331⁄3 book in order to pass the GA breadth criterion, as it covers the topic in great depth and is only cited once in the article currently. I've started a thread about it on the talk page. I didn't realize that this point had previously been raised in the the GA review last April. While some of the outstanding topics from that review appear to have been addressed at least in part (such as some cursory recording information), I suggest revisiting its other outstanding points such as searching Newspapers.com for other sources and some of its other comments on article organization before renominating. Since I expect it to take some time to make these changes, I recommend closing out this review for now but will leave it open for up to the standard week in case you'd like to discuss it first. czar 21:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After lots of great expansion (see Talk:Selected Ambient Works Volume II#33⅓), I'll take another look later this week. czar 02:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Breadth

Starting with the breadth criterion (and a little on how I review), there are some standard histories of ambient music that cover the album but aren't mentioned: namely Prendergast, Mark (2000). The Ambient Century. New York: Bloomsbury. ISBN 978-1-58234-134-7. and David Toop's Ocean of Sound. There is also another Toop citation in the article missing page numbers so I cannot verify it. Will continue but dropping this to start. czar 12:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Lost in Space" citation now has a page number of the interview. I'll work on finding both of the books you mentioned and writing some prose about them. Beachweak (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been expanded with information from both Ocean of Sound and The Ambient Century. Prose about the books discussing Volume II is in the "Reception" section, and information from them is used throughout the article (mostly "Recording", "Composition" and "Reception"). @Czar Beachweak (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity

I'll leave most of my clarity comments inline in the article and edit copy anywhere I trip up.
One comment on clarity as I work through these points; on the point about the Oberheim Matrix, The Ambient Century doesn't specifically say this synth was used in the recording of the album. However, it was obviously a part of his home studio and was deemed important enough for the book to be specifically discussed by it. It's also heavily speculated presets from this synth were used during the recording (which you can see in the second paragraph of this article).

Obviously I don't want to give into WP:CRYSTAL here, and if you think this shouldn't be included I wouldn't be opposed to removing it entirely and just merging the two paragraphs. Beachweak (talk) 13:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Background section isn't currently Background. It would be helpful to have a Background section extending from Selected Ambient Works 85–92 that gives context for this album within the artist's discography (both at the time and now) and its cultural context (this is what the above books do). E.g., the article compares 85–92 with Vol. II later but it's never introduced how they're related. Then the article can just go right into a single Level 2 heading on Recording and composition, but that's not Background. E.g., that he built a studio is Background unless the article is saying that equipment was used for the album.
One major point missing is how sources describe James as thriving on ambiguity, is an unreliable narratory, etc. The Pitchfork review highlights this and it's useful context both on Background, for anyone new to the artist, and for reading his comments about lucid dreaming and power stations. On one hand, his comments can be attributed to him, but on the other hand, commentators (including Toop, per Pitchfork) have not been able to separate the fact from fiction and to what extent it's pathological. czar 12:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Clarity in the first few sections has been cleaned up per your recommendations. There's a brand new background section covering who James is, his unverifiable claims in interviews, the release of Analogue Bubblebath & SAW85-92, the popularity and influence of 85-92, his signing to Warp and the building of that new studio. The previous sections are now just level 2 headers. Beachweak (talk) 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the reviews scored in the Reception section aren't discussed in the text (see Template:Music ratings) czar 12:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the Q Magazine review (because I couldn't find the source - and also it was dated November 2016, so it's irrelevant to that part of Reception anyway) and the Chicago Sun-Times review (because I can't find a source for it and the one linked in the article is a paywalled archive). I will try to find supplemental reviews for these soon. Beachweak (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All the reviews in the Ratings section have now been incorporated into the Reception section. I was going to originally find new reviews to replace the two I removed, but that has proved to be challenging. Beachweak (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Review breadth appears fine for GA and I'll try to track down the two removed sources after this review (see talk page section) czar 03:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few edits for flow and trivia reduction in the first few paragraphs czar 03:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the Ned Raggett quote is meant to offer the Reception
I thought the point of Weidenbaum's iTunes story was that the store briefly used the fan titles until he called them out on it
It was reviewed positively by most critics on release in the lede: What source is supporting this? The Reception section says reviewers were polarised (which is also unsupported). The lede is also citing The Rough Guide to Rock[1] which says the album bombed with critics. Also Larkin: "Volume II ... was not as well received as its predecessor". This is a major inconsistency and should be cleaned up throughout the article. czar 04:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source check

Toop 1994

"standing in a power station on acid" quote checks out but can be further paraphrased
He said that he has synaesthesia, which influenced the music. This is p. 55, not p. 54, and it isn't mentioned as influencing the music. It is connected to why he didn't name the tracks, which is worth expanding.
I removed this claim from the recording and composition section, and instead related it to the artwork and each track being untitled. Beachweak (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toop 1995

Quotes generally check out; comment on "positive" above still stands
Actually said something re: Polaroids in 1994 p. 54. Much of the content is copied so citing the book is more accessible than citing the 1994 interview.

Melody Maker

Single citation checks out
Has a few other details not mentioned: that the release was delayed due to his live schedule, he talks about how most tracks don't have rhythm, and about recording some tracks using only "one sound"

Kessler 1994

Single citation checks out, but is also in Melody Maker

The Rough Guide to Rock in the lede doesn't support the preceding sentence and can be removed or used elsewhere in the article (see above)

Remaining criteria

Cover image, audio clip, and booklet insert all have satisfactory fair use rationales and are justified with contextual significance (NFCC#8). Nicely done.
Earwig's copyvio check is okay. Looks like some direct quotes can be further reduced. Will continue with source spot check.
For stability, the Stone in Focus merger discussion needs to be resolved (apologies). That need not take more than a week and I can retract it if need be but in the meantime and no matter the discussion's outcome, I recommend merging in any of the operative parts of both Stone in Focus and Th1 (evnslower) (the latter is already mostly done) since those are basic details on singles that a reader would expect in the parent article for its basic breadth. The question of what to do with the separate articles once the parent article has complete breadth are independent discussions.
Hopefully finished merging the important parts from "th1 [evnslower]" and "Stone in Focus" into the article. Most of it was already in there, but I went ahead and added more information about what reviewers were saying. This hopefully marks all of these listed improvements finished. @Czar Beachweak (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share copies of the offline sources for verification? E.g., NME, Melody Maker. czar 12:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NME (1994)

Melody Maker (1994)

I know Flickr posts isn't the best for this, but I couldn't find the source anywhere else except for the actual print copy, which I do not have. Beachweak (talk) 13:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Reception section is very quote-heavy and doesn't summarize the critical overview. Almost all of it can be better paraphrased. Without this, it reads like unrelated pull quotes and verges on copyvio. See WP:CRS for advice. E.g., if Hull and Frere-Jones make the same point about the dullness of its repetition, combine both into a single sentence
Toop's Ocean of Sound was "positive"—did it say this? If not, it verges on original research and should be edited to what the source actually claims about itself.
Lede needs expansion to match the breadth of the rest of the article
Are Nialler9, The Vinyl Factory, The Johns Hopkins News-Letter (student paper), tomhull.com, and hyperreal.org reliable sources to cite directly? And is there a list of standard sources to cite for album charts? czar 06:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes and questions:

- ~~Would you say the Retrospective reviews sections also suffers from being overly quote-heavy? Will it need a large amount of paraphrasing too?~~ Yes, it does. Will work on this.

- In regards to the sources listed, Hyperreal.org and its poll results are specifically discussed by 33 1/3. If you think it would be better to either cite the book along with the other results or just directly cite the book, let me know.

- tomhull.com is owned by Tom Hull, who was a critic for The Village Voice. This makes the source seemingly reliable.

- Nialler9 and The Vinyl Factory seem to be reliable. Their usage in the article is just to confirm that the Expanded Edition was announced and released, but I can probably find alternate sources if you prefer.

- In regards to the Johns Hopkins News-Letter, it's use in the article is to confirm the claim that the re-release was dedicated to James' mother. The liner notes of the Expanded Edition also confirm this. Once again, I don't mind removing this source if you deem it necessary. Beachweak (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the Hyperreal.org poll is first established in the article as noteworthy via a reliable, secondary source, then there may be cause to use the primary source to support necessary details that were not covered in the secondary source. But the way it's currently mentioned, the reader isn't introduced to why this ranking is important. I'd either add secondary source context for why it matters or remove it.

I'd remove the student newspaper. We can use a primary source if the fact is necessary but since secondary sources haven't mentioned it, we can cut it.

Tomhull.com would only be used as a self-published expert source but I won't contest it here. Some of the other sources are also on the cusp of noteworthiness. czar 04:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added further context that discusses Hyperreal.org and have removed the student newspaper. Beachweak (talk) 05:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendations outside the GA criteria

A bunch of the writers cited in the Recording and composition section are giving opinions, not description or analysis as one would expect in this section: Prendergast's "sense of awe", "kind of discreet Soviet atmosphere", "lovely", Sherburne's "dying breath of a distant star", Beta's "the side of an alien ship", and the evnslower "slow and eerie stripped-back piece reminiscent of a horror movie". It's messy and off-topic but not a matter of GA clarity. The evnslower mention is an NPOV issue, though.
Citation format is inconsistent but not a GA issue. Some refs are missing authors or dates, basics that all refs should have consistently.
"the second studio album by the British electronic music artist and producer Richard D. James under the alias of Aphex Twin." It's unclear to me why this isn't just "the second studio album by Aphex Twin".
Something to note: James releases music under different aliases all the time, such as Polygon Window, GAK, The Tuss, Caustic Window, AFX, Smojphace, etc. Most articles about James' albums refer to him in this way, such as Surfing on Sine Waves and Syro. To an average reader who knows nothing about this artist, referring to him by his aliases could mean they see them as all individually different artists, rather than the same person using aliases. Beachweak (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Nice edits throughout. A few inline tags, the NPOV/OR Reception issue above, further digesting the Reception quotes, rewriting the lede, and closing the merge discussion is all that's left for this review. Note above recommendations outside the GA criteria too. czar 03:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar Hopefully most of this has been addressed. There's still a few clarification needed tags that I will work on once I get access to a connection that doesn't block archive.org, but I've tried to paraphrase the reception and legacy sections. My copyediting is probably a bit rough but I think it's in better shape than before. Let me know what you think. Beachweak (talk) 14:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All recommendations should be finished up except for one quote from The Encyclopedia of Popular Music. The exact quote states "The On EP in November 1993 followed James' signing to Warp and the next year he released the eagerly awaited Selected Ambient Works Volume II which was not as well received as its predecessor." I'm not sure on how to clarify this. Beachweak (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear if it's referring to popular or critical reception. I'd strike it as vague. Noted one big issue re: characterisation of the Reception above. Still waiting on merge discussion to close (I've put in a closure request). czar 04:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quote has been striked; if you'd like me to remove the review from the review scores box too, let me know. Lede has been adjusted to reflect the actual reception at the time of release and the reception section has been given sources that discuss the mixed reviews. Beachweak (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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:

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

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

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

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

Overall:
Pass or Fail:

This article has been greatly changed since the start of this review and it certainly meets the minimum GA criteria. Nice work! For next steps, I recommend continuing to tighten the prose and standardising the citations (some are missing basic fields like dates/authors). czar 00:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.