Talk:Until the Quiet Comes

Citations

I was skimming the article and felt the information was decent, but needed citations. For example, "Music writers interpret it as a musical accompaniment to dreams, as well as emotional introspection by Flying Lotus" sounds lovely, but I need to know which music writers interpret it this way. The article seems to contain a great many references to reviews of the album, which is great, but I need more links generally throughout to help support the evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Placebro (talk • contribs) 19:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It's summarizing what's cited in the concept section. Dan56 (talk) 19:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary

This article is stuffed with incredibly detailed, yet highly unnecessary, information. Just compare it with the articles of Los Angeles, Cosmogramma, and 1983. This article is so clearly written by one person it is almost laughable. The article is incredibly convoluted and obviously written from a biased perspective. Is "rave" really the right adjective for the reviews this LP received? Does there really need to be an entire section devoted to describing each song in extreme detail? Why would anyone need to know what Thundercat's bass was plugged into? What I am saying will probably have no effect on the article, but it should be written from a more neutral standpoint and should definitely be revised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perceptualpsychology (talk • contribs) 9:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Duly noted.

Although I dont see how it's relevant how many people wrote or researched the article/topic. And its scope/comprehensiveness dont have anything to do with neutrality.

Yes, "rave" is the adjective used by the source cited in the article.

There is a style guide on article body content at MOS:ALBUM that you can review to see what in particular doesnt belong here.

I'm not sure why you would compare this article to a bunch of stub articles?, when I used the same approach here as I did at The Way I See It, Rhythm Killers, and Sons of Soul to make them featured articles. I'll settle for GA with this one though. Dan56 (talk) 09:41, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 01:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Will review this over the next few days AIRcorn (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC) So far the prose is excellent. I have one suggestion from the first section, but otherwise I like what I am reading. I may make slight, uncontroversial changes as I go. Feel free to revert if you disagree with any of them. AIRcorn (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Flying Lotus subsequently began planning new music. This seems unfinished and I am not sure exactly what point it is trying to get across. As a music producer it seems self explanatory (I would think the reverse would be more notable) and I am not sure why it is relevant to the article on this album

• Removed. Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

• Thundercats role in this album is not made obvious in this section, despite getting a reasonable introduction. I am wondering if the previous sentence is supposed to end "...with Thundercat"?

• His role on the album is discussed in the "recording" section. Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Still think it would have been better linking him back to the album in the background paragraph, but it is not really an issue.

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

---

Nicely written article

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Maybe a little a little heavy on the quotes, but they didn't interrupt the flow or feel forced.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Well referenced. Spot checks check out.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Fine in this area

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Has the good with a few mixed in the review section.

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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   I am not sure about File:Sasha3.jpg. It says we have permission to use it, but doesn't link to any permission. It seems to be of another DJ anyway so is probably not that vital to the article (plus it doesn't actually give any evidence that it is an Ableton Live sequencer). The rest seem fine.

• I replaced the image with one of a drum kit setup, and a couple of digital tools, including a labtop running the sequencer program (screenshots of Ableton Live check out with the one in the image, albeit a bit to the far end of the image). Dan56 (talk) 10:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

All good. AIRcorn (talk) 09:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

1. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: