Talk:Mannenberg

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mannenberg/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 12:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• Fine

Lead

• " and as conveying themes of "freedom and cultural identity."" → conveying themes of "freedom and cultural identity."

• I'm afraid I don't understand...the "and as" is grammatically necessary, the rest is identical.

• Read the sentence with "and as" and without it, you will see it's not necesssary

• Hmm. I guess you're right. Done.

• "It has been covered" → no evidence of that in the body of the article

• In the "other versions" section.

 Done

Background

• "his mother played piano in a church, the musical style of which would remain an influence" → doesn't make any sense how can the piano be a music style? the instrument remained a influence that is what you mean, I guess. Full stop after that.

• It was actually the music itself, but agreed, this was badly phrased. Rewritten.

• and Makaya Ntshoko in forming → remove the "in"

• The "in" is grammatically needed, but if you don't like it, I've reworded.

• Remove red wikilink as well

• Included per WP:REDLINK.

• and in 1962 Ibrahim went into exile. → and in 1962 Ibrahim exiled.

• That would not be grammatically correct.

• Could you please explain?

• It's just not used in that way..."Ibrahim went into exile", "Ibrahim went into self-imposed exile", "Ibrahim was exiled (but only if there's an active exiling agent), but not "Ibrahim exiled"...

Thank You.

 Done

Recording and production

• "early 1970s, and Vally produced two of Ibrahim's albums in the following years." → early 1970s. In the following years, Vally produced two of Ibrahim's albums.

• done.

• "and South Africa popular music, and sold well" → and South Africa popular music was able to sell well"

• That would change the meaning of the sentence. It should have been "South African", though, which I've fixed.

• You have to change it somehow as its last sentence doesn't flow well. Perhaps it's the repetition of "and" → popular music, it sold well

• I guess I can see what you are saying. I've gone with a wordier but IMO clearer variant. Take a look.

• This is more a side note but shouldn't "Underground in Africa" be in the album templates in the end of the article?

• That's still a redlink (possibly one that we can place in the body, but I think the notability in this case is marginal) and redlinks in the templates are frowned upon. In any case this would be an issue for the template talk page.

 Done

Musical themes

• During the recording the piano played by Ibrahim had thumbtacks attached to the hammers; the instrument thus had a "metallic timbre" that was generally associated with marabi music. → During the recording, the piano played by Ibrahim had thumbtacks attached to the hammers; the instrument thus had a "metallic timbre" that was generally associated with marabi music.

• Done.

• and so sounded familiar to a large number of listeners. → thus sounding familiar to a large number of listeners.

• Done.

• the piece drew from marabi → the piece was inspired by "marabi"

• I wouldn't be comfortable saying that; "inspired by" is quite different from "drew from".

• What I meant with this amendment is that you have three "drew", if you could replace it with "inspired" would be great or any other synonym to be honest.

• I see what you mean. I've modified it.

• the beat was similar to that of ticky-draai, → the beat was similar to "ticky-draai",

• Ticky-draai is a style, though, not a beat; this would be incorrect to say.

• You said in the article as I quoted above "beat" shouldn't it be replaced by style.

• Well no. The beat of "Mannenberg" was similar to the beat (or beats) used in ticky-draai.

• Could you please add that "ticky-draai" is a style of music, the casual reader (as myself) will not know such and might get confused?

• I'd rather not because it would be repetitive from the previous sentence: instead I've combined the two sentences with a colon, which should make it clearer.

• came from both the → came the

• That does not appear to be grammatically correct...

• This was my bad, I meant to remove the word "both".

• Done.

• communities of the country, and Ibrahim stated that to → communities of the country. Ibrahim stated that to

• Done.

• Unlike red wikilinks.

• Linked per WP:REDLINK.

 Done

Reception and impact

• Remove red wikilink.

• Linked per WP:REDLINK.

• "African record company at the time, and 43,000 copies were sold in the first seven months; for comparison, an album selling 20,000 copies was considered a hit" → African record company at the time. It sold 43,000 copies in the first seven months of its release under the label; for comparison, an album selling 20,000 copies was considered a hit

• Sentence split as you wanted; slightly different wording.

 Done

Legacy and memorial

• That quote is just too long is causing problems regarding possible copyright violations → use way more your own words.

• It's a difficult quote, this, but I've rephrased a fair bit of it.

• It's not enough yet. It's a 46,8 %. It has to be around 30% [1], see what you can trim down in this source.

• Oh, it's the Earwig's tool result you are worried about? That should be a non-issue. The bot is sensitive enough that it will always pick up quotations. It does not tell you whether something is a copyvio or not: it can only check for text similarity. You have to judge whether using a quote is acceptable; and in this case, the text is properly cited and attributed, and is written in such a fashion that paraphrasing will be to the detriment of the article. DYK, for instance, will routinely pass something with such likelihoods, because of the quotation issue. If the bot flagged something outside quotes, that would be bad...

• performance artist Francois Venter → performer Francois Venter (if it is only music)

 Done

Personnel

• You need this sentence "Credits adapted from Mannenberg - Is Where It's Happening inlay notes"

• Why though? AllMusic doesn't seem to say this...

• In that case should be "Credits adapted from AllMusic" and link(s) in front of this. This way you will remove that overlinking in this section

• Okay. I'm guessing you mean references, and not links. Done.

• Yes, in the end of the day it's the same at its core. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• Use {{spaced ndash}} instead of "-".

• Done

• Unlike the redlink.

• Linked per WP:REDLINK

 Done

Tracks

• Fine.

Other versions

• "The recording was released as a CD in 1988 by Bellerephon Records" → wrong date and no label

• There was a typo in the link; but why is the date inaccurate? That's what the source says.

• I still can't see the source, something wrong with the url.

• Yes, my keyboard misbehaves sometimes when copy-pasting. Fixed.

• Are you using an archive link? Because I see no label and the date is 1965.

• Oh I guess you're looking at the original release date, which was not on a CD; under "releases", though, we have Bellaphon records, 1988.

• Remove red wikilink

• Only red because of typo, see above.

 Done

References

• Fine.

Sources

• Fine.

External links

• Fine.

Overall GA review

MarioSoulTruthFan, many thanks for picking this up. I think it's fair to warn you that I am going on Wikibreak starting in a couple of hours; my participation here is going to be limited for the next ten days. I'd ask your indulgence in responding to any comments: I'll do so as soon as possible. Vanamonde (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• In the wiki projects insert importance of the article.

• Below, FTR.

• Explain this to me, in the categories and you have the article as an album, however throughout the article you have "Mannenberg" as a song and the album it was put it is on the infobox, was this some sort of album-single?

• This is a good point. "Mannenberg" refers to the song; the album was titled "Mannenberg: Where it's happening". The album had only two songs, and the other song had virtually no notability; that said, this article is about the song. I do not wish to change the scope of the article at this point. So, I've incorporated the "Tracks" section, which is only appropriate for an album, into the production section, and I will change the categories.

• I t is just a question I had while reading the article. Of course not, it's just to cover every ground if someone has the same question as I did the answer will be here. So I guess that's why the summary was not within the paragraph.

Mario, I will address your other comments as soon as I get to a decent connection, but I wanted to respond to two of your points now. First, I am uncomfortable assessing and article on which I am a primary author. Such an assessment should be done by anuninvolved editor. Second, per wp:redlink, I donly not see the reason for removing all redlinks. They are used for subjects that are likely to be notable but do not have articles yet, which is an appropriate use. Regards, Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 07:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Just wait until I finish the review and enjoy your vacations, I will put it on hold until you comeback. There are no rushes on that, alright? Regarding that issue you raise, you wrote this article taking into consideration the impact of it, which I'm aware after reading almost every section, I believe you have a good idea. If you don't you can compare it to other articles in those projects. However, this is not a requirement for GA so if you don't feel comfortable I won't' push you on that. Nevertheless, it adds more value to the article. "They are used for subjects that are likely to be notable but do not have articles yet" → show me the wikipage on that matter.MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

See WP:REDLINK. Karellen93 (talk) (Vanamonde93's alternative account) 07:18, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

• @MarioSoulTruthFan: Thanks for your patience. I have fixed or responded to all your concerns. It seems as though we differ on a number of minor wording issues. I think I have explained my rationale for each of them, but if you are still dissatisfied, I hope you will be okay with asking for a third opinion, rather than failing outright. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: You welcome, I have yet to re-read what you have done in the background section (I will do after we adress our minor differences), I left you some comments below what you have "not" changed, explaining my reason and sometimes offering a different alternative. Sure, but the issues are minor, therefore I strongly believe we will find a middle ground to which we will both be satisfied. Please verify those comments and give me a response. I will check them later. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• @MarioSoulTruthFan: Fair enough, thanks. I've responded to your new points: this time, I think I've made changes in most cases. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: We are almost there. Last three issues. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

• @MarioSoulTruthFan: Done, I think? Vanamonde (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2017 (UTC)