Good articleLooping State of Mind has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 21, 2023Good article nomineeListed

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Looping State of Mind/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a. (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a. (reference section):
    b. (citations to reliable sources):
    c. (OR):
    d. (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a. (major aspects):
    b. (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales):
    b. (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/fail:

(Criteria marked are unassessed)

I will get on with this right away! --K. Peake 09:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox and lead

  •  Done with the clarification that it is the digital release. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: I did something a little different in light of the previous suggestion. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Done for the title variation.  Not done for the replacing of "critical acclaim", which I find much more concise and natural than "acclaim from music critics". Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background and production

  •  Question: Why? The double bass isn't any more relevant to the album than any of the other listed instruments. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Done for the wikilink, since in this case, the synthesizer isn't a commonly known instrument outside of electronic music as far as I'm aware, and examples of it, in particular, are given in the article.  Not done for the removal of the serial comma. The manual of style does allow for serial commas as per MOS:SERIAL. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Not done: They're separate clauses, so a comma is necessary. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Not done: This makes the sentence ambiguous. It raises the question "conclusion to what?" Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Composition

  •  Not done for both of the above suggestions. MOS:SERIAL commas are allowed in Wikipedia. I don't understand why you want me to remove them. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment: Uhh...it appears the sources don't verify that "Is This Power" has ambient melodies. I've replaced it with an instrument that is verified. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Release

  •  Question: Did you mean paragraph? And if you did, wouldn't that disconnect it from the "Then It's White" sentence? Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Not done: Considering this is the fourth time you asked me to remove a serial comma, I hope you have a very good reason to want me to remove them. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reception

  •  Comment: I have rewritten the opening sentence to address the above two requests while keeping it concise. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accolades

  •  Done in regards to setting the date for the list.  Not done for adding the specific rank. The list is not ranked in order of quality; it is ranked in order of release date. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Track listing

Personnel

  •  Done kinda: The source says, "Polished and engineered exquisitely by Dumbo’s studio technician, Jan Philipp Janzen." It doesn't specify either sound or audio engineering, so rather than piping it, I'm just going to change it the first word from "sound" to "audio". Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Charts

Notes

References

  •  Not done: See my comments down below.  Done for italicization though. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Not done: See my comments down below.  Done for switching to SE URL though. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final comments and verdict

  • I have addressed all your requests and done most of them. Two recurring types of requests I have ignored include requests to move a website into the publisher parameter, which I thought I convinced you to stop requesting when you reviewed the article for MCMXC a.D., and requests to remove the serial comma. A footnote contained in MOS:WEBITALICS reads:

    When used by Wikipedia in a reference citation, any website or other online publication is being cited as a published work, by definition; Wikipedia does not cite companies, individuals, or other entities, only works published by them. As with sources in any medium, titles of minor works (e.g., online articles) go in quotation marks, and titles of major works (e.g. websites) go in italics, even if they would not be italicized in running text as services, companies, etc.

    They also explicitly advise against your very request by saying, "Do not abuse incorrect template parameters (e.g. by putting the work title in |publisher= or |via=) in an attempt to avoid italicizing digital sources." I know a few sources prior to the review did abuse the parameters such as the one for AllMusic, which is why I have corrected them while addressing your requests. Furthermore, you have requested four times that I remove the serial comma, even though it does not go against the manual of style. MOS:SERIAL allows for serial commas "so long as [the] article is internally consistent", even advising in favor of them in cases such as "list with multi-word items...or a series of probably unfamiliar terms." In this case, I feel like you're trying to enforce a standard you like onto an article that already uses another standard that is considered fine. Regardless, thank you for reviewing. Lazman321 (talk) 00:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lazman321 Thanks for the response and I was not aware of the serial comma rules, I will bare those in mind for the future. As for the publisher requests, I was not trying to enforce my reference rather than how I had learnt of non-italicised sources being publishers but I understand that is not always the case so this is acceptable. However, you still need to give context of the production being in 2011 before the four days to use the recording year in infobox, remove pipe on Beats Per Minute altogether on the second instance in prose since that is overlinking and add italicisation of the album title in sources not using quote marks for it. --K. Peake 08:46, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lazman321 ✓ Pass now, well done on fixing everything and maintaining civility despite our disagreements! --K. Peake 21:40, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BorgQueen (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Lazman321 (talk). Self-nominated at 06:07, 23 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Looping State of Mind; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.Reply[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems

Hook eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @Lazman321: Good article but, I don't really think that any of these hooks are interesting. Maybe I need an explanation as to why but I'm just not seeing. Maybe other hooks could be proposed? Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MusicRadar: The album was recorded with a beta version of the newly released Elektron Octatrack sampler? (too tech-heady?)
The Line of Best Fit: Something about the Field aiming "to blend acoustic and electronics in a way that you can’t really tell what’s what anymore" or the "repeating thoughts" quote? (too opinion-y?)
The Quietus: The album, which is about repetition, has the same cover art as his last records? (juxtaposition, but interesting enough?} Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:47, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I apologize in advance for taking a while for me to respond; I've been busy with schoolwork and family life. So sorry Gnomingstuff, I'm not sure how the hooks you have proposed are any better than my hooks. The first one is too specialized—the only people that would be interested are those with special interests in synthesizers, the second one is too vague and flowery—much like a lot of music journalism honestly; and I don't see how exactly the third one is more interesting the hooks I've proposed. Onegreatjoke, if you don't have any good ideas for what would make for an interesting hook, you can fail the nomination. This being an underground work, there's not a lot of information available about it in regard to its production and other outside information, but I nonetheless tried my best to nominate hooks that I felt could have some level of broad interest, but it looks like it wasn't good enough. It's a shame because I really liked this record, but I am willing to accept a failed nomination. Lazman321 (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No need to apologize. What I was going for were hooks that might be interesting to laypeople who have no idea who The Field are or why this band out of the millions of bands in the world should pique their interest. To me, ALT0 seems too generic -- lots of albums have live instrumentation. (Do you mean that this is rare in electronic music to be recorded live? If so, maybe spell that out?) ALT1 is the best of the three but kind of lacks oomph. ALT2 just means nothing to someone who hasn't heard of The Field, says nothing about why it's better, and is also pretty obvious -- given any two things, one is going to be better than the other.
My favorite of the ones I suggested is the third one -- I can imagine a complete newcomer thinking "huh, that's cool, they're really taking this repetition theme all the way" -- and also not all that common among musicians (although Googling it, it seems more like career-long visual branding than anything?) There's probably something better in some interview somewhere though -- you're definitely more familiar with them and me Gnomingstuff (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories