Talk:It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water

It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water 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: January 30, 2023. (Reviewed version).

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 Rock music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rock music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rock music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rock musicWikipedia:WikiProject Rock musicTemplate:WikiProject Rock musicRock music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative music Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 April 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water explores the theme of water and was inspired by Phil Elverum's visits to the ocean? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water.

• "It Was Hot received positive reviews from Pitchfork, AllMusic and Sputnikmusic. Pitchfork included the album at number seven on their list of the "Top 20 Albums of 2000". The album received more reviews following its 2013 reissue, including positive reviews from PopMatters, Consequence of Sound, and Treblezine." - I think it better if the lede summarised why critics liked the album rather than merely document the reception.
  • C To-do

• As Mirah isn't mentioned significantly again, "he encouraged and helped fellow K Records musician Mirah record her debut album, You Think It's Like This but Really It's Like This (2000)" seems irrelevant.
  •  Done

• "but the album's title does not refer to a specific body of water" - feels irrelevant.
  •  Done

• "Blau is German for blue, which is the reason for the song's lyric "blue moon"' - irrelevant.
  •  Done

• "is Drum solos" - ?
  •  Done

• ""The Pull"'s lyrics" to 'The song's lyrics'
  •  Done

• What is the reliablity of Treblezine and Sputnikmusic? In the case of the latter, is the reviewer an amateur or staff member?
  • Sputnikmusic is reliable per WP:A/S; the review is a EMERITUS review. For Treblezine, they have editorial oversight, although they are a small site. I'm not too sure about the reliability: I can probably start a discussion at WT:ALBUM if it comes up in the review. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removal of treblezine would not be difficult: Just would need to remove the "The album makes little use of reverb effects" statement and attributed opinions. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Feeling like summary would do wonders for the reception - less quotes, better readability: Wikipedia:Copyediting reception sections
  • C To-do

• Could we get some more specifications on the personnel?
  • I don't own any physical copies, so the best I can go off of is the liner notes that people uploaded to Discogs (all the images I saw didn't have specific personnel listings). I realized that AllMusic has credits listings, but I'm unsure, since they have Elverum just down as "Engineer" when he clearly did more than that. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update, found someone in RYM's release history saying they got the personnel information from the CD booklet. I'll look around for that online; when I was doing Mount Eerie (album), I asked someone who owned the copy for an image, and that was really helpful, so might try it. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's really all, without getting pedantic. Of this undertaking, I think this is your best work so far. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the comments! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Realmaxxver (talk · contribs) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding comments soon. Realmaxxver (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Realmaxxver: Hey. Just letting you know it's been a month. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• "Since the album was recorded on analogue tape, technical imperfections were embraced." → "Technical imperfections were embraced, due to the album being recorded on analogue tape." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmaxxver (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• "The 11-minute track "The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow" which is later continued on 2001's The Glow Pt. 2." → "The 11-minute track "The Glow" acts as the album's climax and introduces the concept of the "glow", which would be later continued on their next studio album The Glow Pt. 2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realmaxxver (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Realmaxxver, PerfectSoundWhatever, what is the current status of this review? As far as I can tell, in two and a half months, Realmaxxver has only posted two minor points, and hasn't edited Wikipedia at all since that day. PerfectSoundWhatever, if you want, we can call for a second opinion in the hopes of finding someone to take over and do the complete review you've been hoping for. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Yes, I'd like a second reviewer, thank you. I had put up a message here but no one saw. I've seen this reviewers other slow reviews, so I wasn't surprised by this. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 20:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: @PerfectSoundWhatever: I'll do it. This is a short and easy one that doesn't look hard to unpack, unlike my last one...yikes. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

• Upon a cursory glance, I only see one source use the shortened name. I generally think this kind of thing is exceptional to the "no sources in the lead" rule unless you find a suitable place to cover it elsewhere in the article, and recommend at least two but no more than three.
  • I found 3 sources using "It Was Hot" at some point in the prose. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• There appears to be a slight contradiction toward the end of the first paragraph. I recognize that there is a difference between the album's whole theme and specifically a lyrical theme, but it might take an average reader a second to realize the difference you're making. I'd prefer if you described the album genre wise, and then stated the album's inspiration about the ocean, full stop there, then proceed to clarify that while the album as a whole is centered on the theme of water, while the lyricism focuses on nature in general.
• (keep note of this one - this might become irrelevant as my review progresses) Of all the choices of sources you could have highlighted for reviews of this album, I don't think Sputnikmusic is the call. While it is perfectly fine to use as a review in general in most cases, including this one, I think NME is a much better choice to highlight the acclaim of this record if you had to choose three. The due weight of Sputnik has been called into question on I believe more than one, but at least one, occasion in the past year, with one of its former editors coming to Wikipedia themselves to talk about it in Wikiproject discussions.
  • Note the NME source is an offline source I have no access to (and couldn't find). Although, I just found a strange record of it here, so the score is probably not false. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• You linked Pitchfork twice.
  • All above  Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background

• As it is, section is too small. I recommend merging it with recording.
• Can you expand slightly on what "modest studio equipment" means in this context?
  • Changed to "low-fidelity"
• No mention of the apparently existing Window (2000), which would be between this album and Don't Wake Me Up (1999).
  • All above  Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

• As it is, section is too small. I recommend merging it with background.
• Good thing to note, I suppose, but I do have a question. Why is the little use of reverb effects significant? Is this as opposed to previous work?
  • The Treblezine source uses this to convey that Elverum's production is unique: For the Microphones’ only consistent member to consign an epic compositional scope to a dry, starkly intimate production averting the lure of drenching it in canyons of echo, would probably make digital audio engineers in Hollywood shudder and That’s why the sudden swings in sound on this album work, and why shifting instrumentation and imperfection succeed where reverberation would have been overkill. I think this is unnecessary detail for the Recording section, and just adding the fact as is is good enough. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Interesting that you have Khaela Maricich's writing credit included here, but not below in the tracklist. Is this a case where not all of the credits can be known? If so, maybe we should think of using footnotes to help remedy this. Let me know and I'll have something for you. Mention something to the effect of "though individual contributions were not recognized in the credits" with a citation to the booklet here.
  • I remember finding this a while ago, could probably be interpreted into a better credit list (which is strangely where RYM got its credits from). Though, it's hard to read and really unclear. I feel like drawing conclusions from that would be OR. Anyways, there's also this but its clearly incomplete. So I've just done what you suggested. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • All above  Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Music and themes

• Recommend, but not required: Critics described It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water as...
• Seeing it now, you should add in the tracklist that "Sand" is an Eric's Trip cover.
• Instead of simply "building layers", I would say "multiple layers" which build on each other.
• I think a better choice is "softly" instead of "softer" for the ending of "The Glow".
  • All above  Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

• I like your use of the footnote here.
• You linked Sputnikmusic twice in the prose, and named the reviewer twice, both of which are only needed once.
• You don't have to specify KEXP (or link it) twice.
• You have Sputnik's reviewer written as a full name in its reference definition, when in fact it is a screen name. I'd suggest you use |author= instead.
  • All above  Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

• Ah. Now I see what the issue is with credits. The way you have it is sufficient, I suppose.
• Do, however, remember to note the cover.
  •  Done — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

Fine

Release History

• This information should be briefly highlighted in release, but well done for the section.
  • @DannyMusicEditor: What do you mean? There isn't a release section, do you think I should add one? — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PerfectSoundWhatever: Hi, sorry. Guess I'm crazy. I did this in a hurry and I suppose I convinced myself one (or an obviously appropriate section) existed. If it's me doing the work, in light of this revelation, I personally would request that you move around the dates of recording to be toward the end of its paragraph, and follow those details with when it was released. As a result, the paragraph's beginning would roughly be "While recording material at Dub Narcotic Studio in Olympia, Washington, Elverum realized..." I hope that sounds good to you. dannymusiceditor ^oops 23:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @PerfectSoundWhatever: just this one here, and we should be good to go. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

        @DannyMusicEditor: My bad, my eye skimmed over this. Should be resolved now! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Fine

References

• I have a few that I'm skeptical about. Can you sell me on Treblezine and Spectrum Culture?
  • I'm pretty awful at determining reliability but here goes:
    • Spectrum Culture has editorial oversight and is used in GAs (e.g. MF Doom, All Things Must Pass). The author, Joe Clikenbeard, doesn't appear to have a history in music journalism, which isn't a great sell. Most of the citations in the article attributed to this cite are ones already backed up by another source, or attributed opinion. Maybe the objective-fact refs can be removed and the attributed opinion ones kept; considering we can use Fantano for attributed opinion, I don't think this is a huge stretch. But now looking at it, I agree the source is subpar and should probably be at least partially removed. Let me know what you think. (see also this no consensus discussion.)
      • I like this solution. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright, thanks! I've gone and removed the refs to Spectrum Culture, except for 2 attributed opinions and the rating box. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Treblezine has editorial oversight and is used in ~500 articles. The author, Paul Pearson, has written for The Seattle Times, and a few other Washington-based newspapers. Again, I agree it isn't great, although the author is better than the SC one. The cite's removal would require some removed statements, but nothing detrimental. Again, I feel l like there should be more leniency in attributed opinion, because music criticism is all subjective anyways. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sold. dannymusiceditor ^oops 06:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

• Pretty solid work ya got here. On hold. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @PerfectSoundWhatever: Hey, just checking in on this. It's been a week since I made my last comment, and I've only got one left, so I'd like to wrap this up and give you your GA gift. dannymusiceditor ^oops 03:35, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DannyMusicEditor: Sorry, my week has been busy. I'll try to get this done soon! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:10, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @DannyMusicEditor: Let me know if you have any other concerns, and thanks for the patience! — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 18:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Pass. dannymusiceditor ^oops 01:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]