Talk:Interview with the Vampire (Original Television Series Soundtrack)

Interview with the Vampire (Original Television Series Soundtrack) 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. Review: November 30, 2023. (Reviewed version).

Interview with the Vampire (Original Television Series Soundtrack) was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 17, 2023). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

	This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interview with the Vampire (Original Television Series Soundtrack)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mike Christie (talk · contribs) 22:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Earwig shows no issues.

• What makes the following reliable sources?
  • filmmusicreporter.com

•  Done Couldn't find any info, so I deleted info from that ref.

• • perspectiveforum.net

   Done Changed the ref.

  • moviemusicuk.us -- this is a blog

   Comment: The writer, Jonathan Broxton, is not only a member, but also the president of International Film Music Critics Association, whose experience can be found here. His reviews have been cited in other Good Articles, such as Black Panther (soundtrack). Other websites wrote by other members are also cited in GA articles, such as Tracksounds on Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack). - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks -- footnote numbers refer to this version:

• FN 12 cites "Steve Greene of IndieWire listed Hart's work as the eighth best TV score of 2022, stating that Hart provided "both tragedy and romance" and could "tiptoe his way between something full and fierce and a haunting music-box feel"." Verified, but "both" is not inside the quote marks; I fixed this in the article.

• Thank you.

• FN 3 cites "Daniel Hart was announced to score Interview with the Vampire in September 2022." Verified.
• FN 2 cites "In an interview with ScreenRant, Hart said that his experience in writing from other perspectives and in other styles while scoring for The Green Knight (2021) had helped him writing in Lestat's point of view. Hart also chose "Vicious" as his personal favorite track from the soundtrack": Verified, but "writing songs from other perspectives and in other styles" is in the source, so this is too close paraphrasing and needs to be rephrased.

   Done

  This is now rephrased to "writing in different perspectives and styles" which is still too close to the original. A good rule of thumb is you shouldn't be able to tell by looking at the source whether that was the particular source the information was taken from. Here it sounds like the same phrase with a word or two substituted.

• FN 20 cites "The series also featured song "Home Is Where You’re Happy" by the American criminal and musician Charles Manson at the end of the episode "A Vile Hunger for Your Hammering Heart", which was listed in Vulture's top 10 best use preexisting pop music on TV in 2022." The source doesn't identify the episode, as far as I can see.

   Done Added ref mentioning both the song and the episode. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll pause the review here, and continue once the above issues are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were a couple of issues that had to be fixed with spotchecks, I'm going to do a couple more:

• FN 8 cites "which violin solo performed by Synchron Stage's concertmaster Damir Oraščanin". Verified.
• FNs 1 & 2 cite "Hart and Jones spoke at length on what kind of instrumentation, melodies, and rhythms would suit the three main characters best, by sharing "palette library" of music they were each interested in, with regard to the time period the characters lives in and their desire to reflect the music of New Orleans in 1910, especially African-American contributions to it." The source has "from what instrumentation, melodies, and rhythms would suit them best" and "this desire to have the music in some ways reflect the music of New Orleans in 1910, and especially African American contributions to that music". This is almost identical to the source.
• FN 2 cites "A classically trained violinist, Hart played sixty percent of strings in the Vienna orchestra and the rest of the strings in the score". The source has "You're a classically-trained violinist ... it's about 60% an orchestra in Vienna that we recorded, and then the rest of the time, if there are strings, it's me." This is both inaccurate -- the source says sixty percent of the time it's the orchestra, not Hart -- and too closely paraphrased.
• FN 2 cites "The latter and "For a Young Violinist" were featured in the series as songs Lestat wrote for his lovers." I don't see any mention of "For a Young Violinist" in the soruce.
• FNs 2 & 3 cite "stating that Jones is "one of the best people to work for" and knows more about experimental and contemporary classical music than anyone he's ever met in Hollywood". The source has "He knows more about contemporary classical music and contemporary experimental, classical music than anybody in Hollywood that I’ve ever met." This is almost identical to the source.

I'm going to stop here and fail the article; I would suggest going through every citation and making sure there is no close paraphrasing and that the citation fully supports the material in the article before resubmitting. I would also suggest a copyedit -- I saw several places where there was clearly a word or two missing or out of place. Examples: "by sharing "palette library" of music", "his personal favorite track from the soundtrack, which violin solo performed by". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interview with the Vampire (Original Television Series Soundtrack)/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yolo4A4Lo, FYI, due to the American holiday this week, the review may be delayed, but I will pick it back up Sunday at latest! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, take your time. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues. External link-box is unusual but not excessively so given the topic, and certainly relevant.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Sources #7 and #8 (AllMusic) appear to be identical, please combine and check for other duplicated sources. Source #7 is used for the catalog number of digital release and #8 for the album release, which are different. I would like to use the main page for the album, but unfortunately, the catalog numbers aren't available there. Or do you want me to combine it with a Template:Multiref2?? What's the case for Bleeding Cool being a reliable source? I think it's reliable to support the information on the date of "Overture" being posted, or is it allowed to just cite Twitter directly? Let's keep it at Bleeding Cool! If the information from the Reddit AMA is available elsewhere, please remove it as a source - strikes me as coming closer to WP:OR. No, I have looked for other mention of this information in other sources, but unfortunately, there's none. I included it because I think it's very important information about how the actor's involvement in the soundtrack came to be. I went by "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" from WP:PRIMARY when I added it, thus I tried to use the words as closely as I could. --Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] All sounds reasonable. I'll check the other sources but they seemed generally reliable and well-formatted on first spec. Thanks for making the arguments necessary to persuade! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spot checks of four sources turn up no issues along those found by the first GA review - AGF and pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some info sourced to Youtube video interviews, which could present a problem in some articles, but no actual issue here. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing other than some properly attributed quotes and long song titles - hold for manual spot check. Nothing found by manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not finding anything else major. pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nothing egregious. More detail than I would have written, but a few prose tweaks were all that was needed. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Generally positive in tone, but not out of line with reviewers comments, and opinions are properly attributed to reviewers and not given in Wikipedia's voice. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues on talk page, no edit wars, no major ongoing changes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use cover art, no other images, no issues. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A free image of Daniel Hart, if available, wouldn't go amiss, but the article does not require it to meet GA standard and I'm not sure if one could be found. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.