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

Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 02:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Multiple issues noted fixed.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	"Claim" usage noted below Fixed.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	What references there are, are generally formatted properly.
	2b. 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).	Again, what references there are, seem fine.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Multiple important statements are uncited. Corrected during review.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Fine. Earwig's tool successfully found the properly cited review quotes, and nothing more concerning.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Seems reasonable.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Fine.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues noted.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Looks like it's being collaboratively improved, but I see nothing that would rise to the level of edit warring.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fine FUR for the one image we have.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Could we maybe get an image of the band from this era, maybe David Lee Roth? I would typically expect more than just the cover art in an album GA. No relevant, free or appropriate fair use images located after appropriate efforts.
	7. Overall assessment.	Passing per improvements.

First Pass

• "Along with their debut album, it is Van Halen's biggest-selling album, with 10 million copies shipped in the United States.[4]" Awkward. "This and their debut album are Van Halen's biggest selling albums, each having sold more than 10 million copies"?

 Done

• "Reportedly dissatisfied by the concessions he had made to Van Halen's frontman David Lee Roth and producer Ted Templeman on the group's previous album, the #3 Billboard album hit Diver Down—both of whom had discouraged Eddie Van Halen from making keyboards a prominent instrument in Van Halen's music—Eddie built his own studio in his backyard, naming it 5150 (after the Los Angeles police code for "escaped mental patient.")" Nothing particularly wrong with that sentence... except that it is all one sentence! Break it up a bit for easier reading, please.

 Done Comment - Shortened completely

• The quotation marks in the Rolling Stone quotation which makes up the latter half of the Recording section do not match. Also, make sure to alternate between single and double quotes to indicate quotes within quotes.

 Done Comment - Shortened completely

• "1984 features Van Halen's most prominent use of keyboards to date" What do you mean by 'to date'? Was it just the most at the time of release? Or have they never gotten any more keyboard-prominent in any of their subsequent studio albums?

 Done Removed

• "The summer saw the release of the album's third single "Panama"," Of what year? You just talked about the 1982 world tour in the preceding sentence.

 Done - Specified year

• "The album concludes with "House of Pain", a fiery, heavy metal song that dates back to the band's early club days of the mid-1970s." It SOUNDS like the mid 1970s Van Halen songs, or it was written that long ago? If the former "reminiscent of" or similar would be clearer.

 Done - It is from the 70s, added ref.

• Note and address the 'specify' tag, please.

 Done - Couldn't find a source for that interview. removed, re-written and sourced.

• Watch for "claims", especially when both DLR and EVH substantively agree.

 Done - Cleared up I think?

• "The cover, featuring as it did the smoking putto, was 'censored' in the UK by the addition of a sticker that obscured the cigarette in the putti's hand, and the packet of cigarettes; but the censoring of the cover is cancelled." 1) needs a cite, 2) putto or putti?, 3) scare quotes on censored?, 4) Implemented by whom? Cancelled by whom?

 Done - Cleared up, sourced.

• "Like many bands starting out on their career, Van Halen shared songwriting credit equally between all members (including guitar instrumentals, which were clearly composed only by Eddie), but subsequent claims would lend credibility to the view that all songs were entirely or predominantly written by Eddie Van Halen and David Lee Roth, with little input from Van Halen's rhythm section." Plausible, but without a cite that sounds like OR to me.

• "1984 is the second of two Van Halen albums to have achieved RIAA Diamond status, selling over ten million copies in the United States." Since the lead mentions that the initial album was the other, the Release section ought to, too, shouldn't it?

 Done

• "It sold over three million copies, making it one of the four best-selling rock songs of the 1980s." Citation needed.

 Done - Couldn't find source for this. Re-written to say the song was certified Gold.

• "When Van Halen's 1984 was released in the UK, a removable sticker with the Roman numerals MCMLXXXIV (which is "1984"), had to be placed over the cherub's hand, as it was holding a cigarette and there happened to be a non-smoking campaign happening at the time. The same protocol was upheld for several other bands' albums as well, such as the UK release of Canadian rocker Kim Mitchell's album Akimbo Alogo, where the entire cover was changed due to a smoking reference." Ah, this explains a bit about the smoking cherub (is it a cherub or a putto? or a putti?), but it's still not cited.

 Done

• "With 1984 some critics felt Van Halen reached the pinnacle of its commercial and critical success.[18]" Specify who, please.

 Done + sourced

• "This song is also used by the French soccer team Olympique de Marseille as they enter the field in their Stade Velodrome." Seems trivial; cite it or lose it, please.

 Done - Removed

• Track Listing still lists Michael Anthony on all songs--I understood from the article that they had been removed after legal actions.

 Done - Removed

• Reference one needs a title for a title, rather than a URL.

 Done

Overall, the prose is in pretty marginal shape for a GA candidate, and definitely needs a thorough going-over. Let me know when you're ready for a re-review. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Second pass

• Refs 2 and 26 are both to Consequence of Sound. They can be merged.
• The first two sentences of the Recording section still aren't quite right. Probably need to do a bit more nuanced rewording and separation there.

Working... Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jclemens: - Done and done. I do not peg myself a good writer but I redid the first few sentences of the Recording section. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 05:53, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (EC) I went and fixed the Rolling Stone quote to match the source and conventions for quotes within quotes.
• I don't think we're allowed to have the single cover as a fair-use image. I'd take it out and spend a bit more time looking for something on the band itself.
• Back cover is a bit less iffy, but we still need to have a good fair use rationale, ideally supported by critical commentary in the article which references the back cover artwork: was it controversial? Was it panned? That will help determine whether we can have more than just the front cover. See WP:FUR for starters, but I'm afraid while I know it's common practice, I don't see where there is a "thou shalt not have more than one fair use image" expectation documented for albums.
• Still have a 'claim' in there. See WP:CLAIM.
• The sticker incident in the Release section is still not cited.

You don't have to fix everything right away. Feel free to slow down, deliberate a bit more, and ask questions back at me about what I've said. I don't fail GAs while an editor is working on addressing concerns. Jclemens (talk) 05:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jclemens - I didn't upload the single cover. Surely someone would have been on it and deleted it? I uploaded the back cover. I will work on the claim thing. I don't really know what to put in place of it. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I could not find anything about the sticker so I removed it.--Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removed 'claimed'. Nothing controversial about the back cover, but there aren't many photos of the band from that era that can really be used. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 06:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jennica, it's okay to have the single image on Wikipedia, but not in its parent album article. That is perfectly fine on "Jump". Not 1984. Jclemens makes a good assessment of this, as there's no way of saying that we definitely can't do more than one, but keep in mind that Van Halen themselves were delisted way back in 2007, and they had several on their page (though as I recall they had two). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: - okay, I removed the single cover from the article. What do you mean by "delisted in 2007"? sorry --Jennica✿ / ^talk 02:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Talk:Van Halen for information about that. The band article used to be a GA. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third Review

Now that you've fixed up so much of the other stuff, the 'Songwriting Credits' section looks like it should be addressed, and written a bit more chronologically. All the parts are there and cited, but it just reads a bit choppily.

Also, I fixed a bit of the FUR on the back cover photo, but I think you really need to come up with an accurate and convincing NFCC#8 rationale, because what's there now is not accurate. Remember, you don't HAVE to have images, but you should have them as is possible. I looked through Commons, and I don't see any free photos of the band from this era. Jclemens (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jclemens: What about a low quality screencap of the Jump video maybe? I am sort of struggling to find what else could go there, if anything. I changed around the songwriting section a bit. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 08:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's nothing else to add, there's nothing else to add. Fair Use limits are pretty set in stone, so we can't just add copyrighted stuff (and yes, a screencap from a video counts as a derivative work) willy-nilly. The best thing would be to find old school Van Halen fans who were also photography buffs in the 1980s who would be willing to donate some high-quality pics from that era with a Creative Commons license. I appreciate how hard you're working to find an answer here, but it may simply not be reasonable to find additional, suitable images. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From the top again

• I see a couple of paragraphs where there is no citation: Songwriting credits last paragraph, singles last paragraph, 3rd in Release, etc. Most likely you will be able to duplicate existing inline references to illustrate which apply to which statements. Let me know if you need help doing that.
• I still don't think the rear photo cover has sufficient commentary to justify the fair use. It's not that WE need to comment on it, we need to be reporting on other people commenting about it to justify it. Frankly, the rear cover seems entirely pedestrian and very 1980's. Jclemens (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jclemens: - Honestly, I dislike the songwriting credits section (I didn't write it btw) and upon researching, this 2015 anniversary edition of 1984 still has him on the vinyl label. And then you look at the I'll Wait page and it lists Michael Anthony as well as producer Ted Templeman, with book sources. The whole section is just problematic. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 20:11, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

January 14th

I know you continue to work on this, so here's yet another take from the top:

• "their debut album" could stand to be wikilinked in the lead.
• Lead should be expanded with some critical reception and chart position information.
• Songwriting credits needs to be verified thoroughly and revised appropriately, as you note above.
• I still do not see the back cover image as appropriate fair use for album artwork. I'm going to ping another editor more versed in these matters than I am.

If (and this is an IF) you want to take more time than a typical GA review to rewrite the article more thoroughly, you are welcome to do so. That would mean not passing the article at this time, which may be appropriate if you aren't able to make progress on the sticky problems. Any time I "fail" a GA article, I offer a reviewer the option to have me pick it up right back out of the queue as soon as the issues I've identified before have been addressed. I know how difficult it can be to put a lot of effort into getting something to GA and then realize you just don't have all the puzzle parts lined up! Of course, that's an optional offer, and anyone is always welcome to wait in the queue for a different set of eyes on the article. At any rate, that's just another option. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jclemens: Hello. I have made several small changes. I tried expanding on the lead as well. I was able to find more sources for the songwriting credits section. And it's fine if the back cover goes, if need be. I am hopeful and optimistic this is the last set of edits. --Jennica✿ / ^talk 00:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like the improvements to the songwriting section. I'm going to delete the back cover and pass it. Jclemens (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]