Talk:Mwng

Untitled

ysbeidiau heulog is on songbook (at least the uk edition), so the bit about no songs being on songbook is wrong- and entirely appropriate, since it was the only single from mwng

Mane

The translation of Mwng is given as Mane, which is a disambig page. I assume that it means the mane of a Lion and not the mane of a horse, but I don't speak Welsh. If it does, indeed, refer to that of a Lion, it could point to Lion#Hair_.26_mane. I guess if it's really the same as the English "Mane", then it's entirely ambiguous and should point where it already does... Oh well. It was a thought anyway.  — gogobera (talk) 22:46, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• I never thought of that. Mwng is mane, but the graphic on the album cover doesn't look like a lion or a horse, so maybe a link to a disambig page is better. But should it not say '(English: Mane)' rather than '(Welsh: Mane)'? --Rhyswynne 10:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Citation style

Cavie, I saw your query about citation styles on FAC talk. I can't advise about template use, because I don't use them. But in terms of what to include, this is what I write:

• For a book (link and place of publication optional, but lots of editors will insist on the latter)

• Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press, p. 3.

• For a newspaper article (link and access dates are optional; personally I don't add the latter unless the website is unstable, but some editors like to see them anyway):

• MacAskill, Ewan. "Americans waits to see what will be Obama's next move", The Guardian, November 4, 2010, accessed November 4, 2010.

• For a website (lots of different ways of writing these, so this is just an example; and it always makes sense to add access date when the material exists only on a website):

• "Her Majesty the Queen", royal.gov.uk, accessed November 4, 2010.

See this section of CITE for more information. Hope this helps a little. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:14, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Some comments: pretty good! Fifelfoo (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

• Is NME actually called NME or is this an acronym?

It's commonly referred to as just NME

• The Official Charts Company doesn't appear to be a book or collection, unless it is a journal, in which case date of publication?

It's a website (am using the web cite template)

• EDM800 appears to be miscited, Hansard?

I really don't know how to cite this properly - help!!!

You're best to find the EDM800 in the official record of Parliament, Hansard, than on a website. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Prowse is a self-published source

See comments in GA review

• BBC publishes in so many modes, you had better say which mode (website) and which section of the website?

How do I do this?

It really is up to you. cite web has title= and work=. It may have publisher. Title would be the page, work the section of the bbc website and a mention that it was on the website (rather than Radio 1, or BBC 1). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I've already lodged bugs as a result of FACs for authorless news items.

Again I don't know what to do about this - in my experience many news items on website are unattributed as they're the product of the 'news team' rather than an individual.

It isn't your fault. If you're using the template, as soon as they fix the template, the fix will flow through. If the item was authoratively authored by Staff Correspondent, then author takes "Staff". If it was authored by staff but not certain [Staff], etc. With no byline, leaving it blank is fine. The display inconsistency is because the template maintainers are bad. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: BelovedFreak 16:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   A few points raised below

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A few questions over sources

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No problems here

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No problems here, although possible overuse of "claims"

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Images and sound files are used appropriately & have fair use rationales and appropriate licenses

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I've found some issues to be addressed. I also have some suggestions that are either unrelated to the GA criteria or are just my opinion, so I'll list those separately and you can do with them what you choose!

Specific issues

• No links to disambiguation pages, no dead external links

Lead

• "...may as well release Welsh pop songs that wouldn't get played..." → would not get played (avoid contractions)  Done

Origins and Recording

• "...a song written by Rhys in 1987 that he'd never..." → he had never (avoid contractions)  Done

Musical style

• I think a bit more attribution is needed here to say who thinks certain things, especially where you are quoting. Who is saying these things? I think it would benefit from being a bit more like the Critical reception section in that respect.
• "late 60s groups" → late 1960s groups (more formal, as it's not a direct quote)  Done

Release

• "In America" should probably be "In the United States", as America can have more than that meaning. Of course, if you mean North America, then you should say that.  Done

Critical reception

• "The Melody Maker" - should this be just Melody Maker?

The magazine is usually referred to as The Melody Maker in the same way as NME is The NME. Cavie78 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• "...the band's influences are "channelled it into a truly organic maverick pop"." - something's not right there grammatically  Done
• In a quote from the Yahoo! review, you have an ellipse that is not in square brackets. Elsewhere you use square brackets. The brackets should not be necessary unless there is some ambiguity over whether or not the ellipsis is in the original source. however, whether you use them or not, it should be consistent (see also WP:ELLIPSIS).  Done
• The statement from Rhys at the end of this section seems misplaced as it's neither critical reception nor a comment about the critical reception. Perhaps it would be better in either the musical styles or lyrical themes section? (Depending which is more relevant; it's hard to tell from the quote.)

The quote refers to the album as a whole. I placed it in the reception section as it was Rhys looking back on the record several years after its release and seemed to fit there better than anywhere else. Cavie78 (talk) 20:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I still disagree and think it would be better elsewhere, but I'll leave it up to you.--BelovedFreak 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

References

• The reference currently at no. 5 (Debs Prowse interview) could do with more information - the title of the source (Welsh Bands Weekly) and the issue number  Done I've changed the ref to refer to my print copy. A pdf is available here
• What makes the following reliable sources (for supporting facts or for using their reviews):
  • Welsh Bands Weekly - the magazine is considered good enough to be linked to from both the The Guardian and BBC as well as to get interviews with such 'high profile' bands as The Stereophonics and SFA in the first place. The magazine was sold in various places such as Andys Records and Virgin Megastores and is archived by the National Library of Wales and National Library of Scotland (see here) for what it's worth. Main editor Debs Prowse also appears in an article from News Wales here The only info I'm using from the publication is a transcript of an interview with bassist Guto Pryce which I feel adds to the article - it is hard to find quotes from band members other than Rhys. Cavie78 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Nude as the News - used as a source by many music articles including FAs such as Pinkerton, Lions, Be Here Now and Spiderland. Troy Carpenter has written for Billboard and currently writes for Reuters. Cavie78 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • SonicNet - owned by Mtv, see here Cavie78 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Chicago Innerview - have linked to Wiki page, see here Cavie78 (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I see you've also received some advice about citations on the article talkpage, so those are worth bearing in mind for FAC, and good practise, although not all of it is directly applicable to the GA criteria

Further suggestions

Lead

• I would consider something like the fourth studio album by Welsh rock band Super Furry Animals, to add context  Done
• I don't think you need so many citations in the lead. Opinions vary on this, but it can make it look a little cluttered and more difficult to read. All (with a few possible exceptions) info in the lead should be repeated & cited elsewhere (see also WP:LEADCITE). I saw the thread you posted at WT:FAC about this, so you've obviously thought about this but just wanted to give my opinion!
• Here, and throughout the article, I think you could get rid of some commas. This is just a thought, as I'm no expert on this, but some of them seem unnecessary to me. Eg. "...diverse set of subjects, such as...", "...generally positive, although some reviewers...", "...decided that, rather than releasing...", "...reasoned that, if their English language..."
  • All of the examples you give are correct with the commas; see, for example, The Chicago Manual of Style 16th Edition, paragraphs 6.23 through 6.34. Commas are used to set off parenthetical comments ("reasoned that, if their English language"—CMoS 6.24); nonrestrictive phrases, such as those that begin with "such as" in most cases (CMoS 6.26–27); and independent clauses joined by conjunctions ("generally positive, although some reviewers"—CMoS 6.28). In fact, there are places where the article could use more punctuation, not less. I'm taking a copy-edit pass at the article now. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
    • I'm certainly no expert at grammar, was just making a suggestion. :) Presumably the CMoS is particularly relevant to American English? Does it apply to British English too?--BelovedFreak 17:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
      • In my experience, the use of commas in body text is generally identical between both dialects; it's usually the little particulars, like "Mr." vs. "Mr" for salutations, where punctuation changes between British English and American English. The 16th Edition of CMoS actually integrates a lot of traditionally-British customs, most notably "US" instead of "U.S." as the appropriate abbreviation. It does note where the British custom differs; in respect to commas, the only note I find is that British English often substitutes which for that in restrictive clauses, although that is not always the case, and many British English writers prefer the rule that restrictive that never follows a comma, but nonrestrictive which always follows a comma—a hard-and-fast rule in American English. Given that British English is okay with either version, it makes sense to follow the American rule given its widespread adoption. (The way I learned it is with a simple mnemonic: "that or comma which".) Don't worry, I'm aware this is a British English article and I will do my utmost to keep my colonial linguistic heresies out of it. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Actually, in my experience, you get more commas in American English than British English. As I say, I'm not a grammar-whiz by any stretch of the imagination, that's just something I noticed when I was in the US, but it could have just been isolated incidents, I don't know. Anyway, I'm certainly not trying to step on your toes here, so go for it! If this ever goes to FAC, I'm sure the prose experts will raise any issues. (That's not to say that you won't do a great job, just if there are any outstanding issues!) --BelovedFreak 18:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• "...Elfyn Llwyd, who claimed the record to be "the best selling Welsh language album of all time"." - saying he "claimed" this fact, makes it sound dubious (I'll mention using claimed later on). Reading on, I see that several other sources have called it that. I wonder if it would be more relevant to quote Llwyd calling the album a celebration and a short note about Rhys disputing that. It just seems strange to mention in the lead that Llwyd called it the best selling album, when this turns out to be a widely held opinion.  Done I've changed the quote - well spotted! I think Llwyd's claims about it being a celebration (and the fact it was mentioned in the HoC at all are the really relevant things here)

Origins and Recording

• I think "commercial sounding" could maybe use a hyphen  Done
• "...to avoid one instrument bleeding onto the track of another..." → perhaps to avoid the sound of one instrument bleeding onto the track of another  Done I'm a musician so this makes sense to me but do you think the sentence sounds ok for non-experts? I wanted to include a wikilink but couldn't find anything to explain the concept of 'bleed' Cavie78 (talk) 20:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, pass... I'm also a musician, so I suppose that's why it makes sense to me too! I think it's obvious what it means, as it's quite a descriptive way of putting it.--BelovedFreak 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Musical style

• Here, and elsewhere, you have a few uses of "claimed". I think that can sound slightly less-than-neutral, as if the person making the claims is lying, or wrong. I know it can be difficult to think of synonyms for "said", but I find that more often than not, "said" is perfectly fine, and not really that noticeable (see also WP:SAY)  Done
• Here, and elsewhere, you have strings of citations, sometime up to four at a time. Make sure these are all necessary and could not be covered by fewer citations. One option to consider, to improve readability, is to combine the citations into one footnote. (see also the thread started by you at WT:FAC!

Lyrical themes

• There's a lot of quoted material here which might flow better with more paraphrasing.

I've used direct quotes only when I feel it would be wrong to paraphrase for fear of putting my own interpretation on Rhys's words. Where this isn't an issue I've paraphrased. For "Pan Ddaw'r Wawr", "Nythod Cacwn", "Sarn Helen", "Ymaelodi Â'r Ymylon", "Dacw Hi" (half the album) I use no direct quotes (ok, well one for "Nythod Cacwn", but that's just to establish that Rhys made up his lyrics on the spot) Two of the remaining five songs mix quotes with paraphrases so it's only really "Ysbeidiau Heulog", "Y Teimlad" and "Drygioni" where I just use quotes and these were particularly difficult, either because what Rhys had to say about them was difficult to put into my own words without losing some of the impact or meaning and/or because he said very little about them. Cavie78 (talk) 00:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• It might be nice to include the translations of some of the titles you are discussing if they are relevant to the discussion of the song meaning, to add context, eg. "Nythod Cacwn"

Critical reception

• "LeMay did go on to state, however..." → LeMay went on to state, however...  Done

Personnel

• I personally think it's ok not to give a source here, as it's fairly obvious how to verify the information. I have increasingly seen a source asked for in a personnel section though, so it's worth considering. Either the liner notes or Allmusic are usual.

Yeah, it's a bit of a funny one, I always used to give a cite for personnel but was then told not to. One thing that I always used to have a problem with was where to actually put the cite. What do you think? Cavie78 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's how I've done it before, but I'm not sure it's necessarily the best way!--BelovedFreak 21:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've added a cite for each section. Cavie78 (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

References

• You have publication details for some sources (eg. NME), but not others (eg. The Independent). This should be consistent

Have added a publisher for The Independent. Not sure what to do about websites... I'm a cataloguer at a University in the UK and we don't require place of publication for websites but that's another story. Cavie78 (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking more of FAC-type standard, they like consistency there. I'm not 100% sure to be honest, but it's good enough for now. You'd be best asking one of the FAC regulars like Brianboulton, Ealdgyth, Nikkimaria or Fifelfoo. As for that BBC reference, I personally would cite it with work=BBC Wales and publisher=BBC (although that doesn't make it clear that it's the website, so again - ask the experts!)--BelovedFreak 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)  Done

External links

• You have Metacritic as a references, so shouldn't be necessary to include it in the external links section

I am happy to remove this but, equally, I think it's appearance in the 'External links' section is different from it being used as reference. Cavie78 (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No problem, not a big deal.--BelovedFreak 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories

• No Welsh-language album category? Might be worth creating one if there are enough articles to go in it.

I've added 'Welsh-language music'. I'm a bit unsure about creating a category - there aren't that many Welsh language albums on Wiki and many of the ones that are featured have English language songs on as well (see records by Gorky's Zygotic Mynci for an example) Cavie78 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok!--BelovedFreak 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll put the article on hold for now so that you can address any issues, and I'll add anything else that I notice in the meantime. Good work so far, I enjoyed reading it, and it's nice to see a music article that's a bit out of the ordinary! It's also inspired me to check out some more of their music! Let me know if you have any questions or disagree with any of my requests.--BelovedFreak 18:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for putting the work in, I'll list the article as a GA now. I appreciate you explaining each of those sources to me, and I'm happy with them all now. The only thing I can see outstanding is the issue of better attribution in the "Musical style" section. On second thoughts, having another look, I don't think this should hold it back from GA. I still think it's important, but it doesn't affect WP:V and isn't a problem with regard to WP:WIAGA. So, well done! --BelovedFreak 21:42, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested copy-edit

I completed the copy edit. There wasn't very much to do; some punctuation, a few instances of rephrasing. I do notice that a few chunks of the article are repeated word-for-word in the lead; is this intentional? Also, it looks like the references don't have a consistent date format. Depending on whether WP:STRONGNAT or WP:DATERET applies, all references should use either day-month-year or ISO-format dates consistently. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I was using the dates as they're presented by the sources but I'll change so they're consistent. Cavie78 (talk) 19:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Have changed all the dates to day-month-year (because some of the magazines span multiple dates I thought this preferable to ISO) Cavie78 (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mwng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080612145143/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com:80/article/record_review/22151/Super_Furry_Animals_Fuzzy_Logic_Radiator_Out_Spaced_Guerilla_M to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/22151/Super_Furry_Animals_Fuzzy_Logic_Radiator_Out_Spaced_Guerilla_M

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:43, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Mwng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110217184104/http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/super%20furry%20animals/ to http://www.theofficialcharts.com/artist/_/super%20furry%20animals/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nudeasthenews.com/reviews/586
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100914142359/http://www.cokemachineglow.com/record_review/2702/super-furry-animals to http://www.cokemachineglow.com/record_review/2702/super-furry-animals

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:20, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mwng. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728183751/http://www.mwng.co.uk/mwnglyrics.htm to http://www.mwng.co.uk/mwnglyrics.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)