Talk:It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water/GA1

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

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.

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).

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".

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.

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.

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]

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]

Overall

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:It_Was_Hot,_We_Stayed_in_the_Water/GA1&oldid=1136379100"