Talk:The Velvet Underground (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 16:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

   B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?

   A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an acceptable reference section. There is some use of the generally less popular and awkward short citation system, but this is allowed, and is used a fair amount in FA articles, so meets GA criteria. SilkTork (talk) 16:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• There is some reverting happening, but this is minor and within tolerance. On the whole a reasonably stable article, though if reverting occurs during the GA review this criteria may need to be revisited. SilkTork (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• The two images meet policies and guidelines. SilkTork (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. SilkTork (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
• Appears to pass CopyVio. Earwig picks up material from ReturnOfRock.com The Velvet Underground Self-titled Album Songs Ranked: [1]. Though that material mostly appears to be present in the article prior to Oct 2021, when the article was published. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Focused. No section is overly detailed. SilkTork (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• Most aspects that a reader would expect in an article on an album are covered. SilkTork (talk) 12:03, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
• No evidence of bias. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Query

• I'm trying to track down which source is used for which statement in the "Background" section. There are a number of statements that appear to be unsourced, such as "Cale was kicked out of the group in September 1968, and Yule was brought in as a bassist.", and "According to Morrison, earlier in 1968 a majority of the band's equipment got stolen at JFK International Airport which influenced the album's sound." Even though I am aware from my own reading of the subject that those statements are true, the sourcing needs to be tighter and clearer in the article. Not a requirement, but helpful to readers: where possible select sources which can be checked online. SilkTork (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The article is richly cited, though I am finding awkward spots where challengeable statements are made which do not appear to be firmly sourced. I am starting to tag these so they are easy to find and fix. While there is a general agreement that the lead doesn't need souring for obvious statements, there is still a requirement for challengeable or contentious statements to be sourced in the lead, particularly on articles which come under WP:Biographies of living persons. See MOS:CITELEAD. As a rough rule of thumb I always follow the principle of "if in doubt, cite it" - the better flaw is to be over-cited rather than under-cited. SilkTork (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• Article appears to remain within known parameters, and is well sourced; though, until wording from main source can be confirmed, it is unknown if some phrases and ideas in the article are interpretations or original research. SilkTork (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Fail

• The lead doesn't match the main body - it makes statements which are not in the main body, such as "Thematically, The Velvet Underground discusses love, contrasting previous releases from the band"; "consisting largely of ballads and straightforward rock songs"; "Contemporary reviews praised the album, which was a turning point for the band." To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

General comments

• "the band sitting sedately" - does the source say "sedately"? If so, that opinion should be given to the source, not shown in Wikipedia's voice. If not, then the word should be removed. SilkTork (talk) 08:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

*I'm away for a few days, and I may not have time to work on this review - but if I do, it'll be under the account SilkTorkAway. SilkTork (talk) 06:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

• "abrasive" (in the lead) and "direct abrasiveness" (in the "Music and lyrics" section) are critical opinions - two sources are given, the second of which I've not yet been able to check, but the first, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia, doesn't say "abrasive", it says "uncompromisingly noisy": [2]. The term abrasive is often used by writers in relation to the first two albums - it's just a case of finding the right sources (preferably accessible) which say that. SilkTork (talk) 10:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Cale was fired". Sources are unclear on what happened. Some sources say he quit, while others say he was fired. What appears to be agreed is that there was dissent between Cale and Reed resulting in Cale leaving the band. Perhaps best to be neutral, and just say that there was dissent and Cale left the band. SilkTork (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading more, and I note that most sources say that Cale was fired, so following the majority of sources would be acceptable. SilkTork (talk) 12:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• I am having a problem with the main source used, White Light/White Heat: The Velvet Underground Day by Day, as it is out of print, and is not available on Google books. Are you able to scan/photo the relevant pages per WP:OFFLINE and either email them to me or temporarily upload them to Wikipedia? SilkTork (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• "straightforward rock songs" (lead) - what does this mean? it is unsourced, and the phrase doesn't appear in the main body. SilkTork (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• "marked a notable shift in style from the band's previous recordings" and "The restraint and subtlety of the album was a significant departure from the direct abrasiveness of White Light/White Heat". While agreeing that the album is softer than the first two albums, the wording used in the article is not that used in the accessible source which simply says "much softer". I assume the wording of "notable shift in style" and "restraint and subtlety" come from Unterberger's "Day by Day" book. Could you supply me with that wording from Unterberger's book, or find an alternative (accessible) source? SilkTork (talk) 11:17, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

• "Contemporary reviews praised the album, which was a turning point for the band" in the lead. The main body doesn't agree with this statement, which is also inaccurate according to contemporary reviews of the first album. SilkTork (talk) 11:32, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Pass/Hold/Fail

• A decent article. The quibbles are mainly due to unavailability of the main source, and so difficultly in confirming details. Also, there needs to be a tighter relationship between the details and wording in the lead and the details and wording in the main body. On hold while these matters are resolved. SilkTork (talk) 12:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

@SilkTork--commenting here so that you know that I've seen this. I've had to deal with severe mental health issues, so I'll try to start working on this as soon as I can, hopefully by tomorrow. DecrepitlyOnward (he/they/she) (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool. I noticed that you hadn't logged in, so I kept the review open for your return. I'm confident that my quibbles will be resolved, and that this will become a Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Given the circumstances I am closing this review as not listed. An email has been sent to User:DecrepitlyOnward explaining that they can renominate the article at a time when they are more able (provided they first address the minor issues raised in this GAN - which unfortunately I cannot deal with - normally I would, but I do not have access to the main source used). I wish you well DecrepitlyOnward. Take care of yourself. SilkTork (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)