stringtranslate.com

Talk:Worlds (Porter Robinson album)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Worlds (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Worlds Remixed into Worlds (Porter Robinson album)

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.



It's very possible that the remix album might be independently notable, but none of the sources I've seen cover it in a whole lot of detail. I feel like this content would be a much better fit as a section for the main album's article, where it would have more context and — in my opinion — greater encyclopedic value. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Goal: TFA on August 12, 2024

I am currently working on this article with the goal of making it TFA on August 12, 2024, the 10th anniversary of Worlds. I don't know if it will be possible because there's not that much time (and I'm not that experienced with FAC, so I'd definitely need to open PRs or go for GA first which takes time), but I'll try my best. I am mainly working on User:Skyshifter/sandbox, but I've just implemented 10 kb of new content. In case anyone is interested, any kind of comments on this content I'm developing would be highly appreciated. "Background and development" should be finished, as well as "Release and promotion" expect the sub-sections; likely moving to Composition next. Skyshiftertalk 13:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm here to help out wherever I can. Getting this to FA in six months is kind of a tight deadline, but probably doable if you're willing to take the risk of skipping GAN (which could mean months of waiting). Also, try to work on the prose in this article, rather than your sandbox, as much as possible, as it gives me and other editors more of an opportunity to see how the article development is coming along and pitch in. That being said, is there anything specific you'd like me to help with right now? TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 15:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best to continue working here instead of the sandbox. It's technically four months to get to FA at most, since that's when I'll need to make the request at WP:TFA/R. I had been thinking of promoting the article for some time, but I just recently noticed that Worlds's anniversary is that close, so yeah. I might skip GA indeed, going for PR instead maybe. Right now, really any kind of comment would be useful. I only have one FA, so I don't think I'm experienced with having professional prose and other criteria, sourcing, etc. Since you're also a fan of Robinson, if you know any important information I've missed, feel free to point it out too. Skyshiftertalk 16:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a closer look at the additions you've made later this week and either leave comments for you or fill things in myself. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think I've finished. Not sure if I go for GAN or PR. Skyshiftertalk 20:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have quite a few GANs already, so I'm opening a PR. Skyshiftertalk 20:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned that a PR can happen simunatenously with a GAN, so that's what I'll do. It could be reviewed during the March backlog drive. Skyshiftertalk 12:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FAC is open! Skyshiftertalk 00:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My, what a coincidence... ;) TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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.


This review is transcluded from Talk:Worlds (Porter Robinson album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Skyshifter (talk · contribs) 12:40, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to add to the peer review (which I might still do), but I figured I would just go about this instead. I'll try to be thorough and put even my minor comments here, which I imagine will be most of them. This album means a lot; getting it to TFA is a noble goal, and I hope I can help! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Skyshiftertalk 12:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Averageuntitleduser, thanks for taking the review! You've already mentioned you're looking at the article from that angle, but we'd appreciate even minor MOS compliance things you notice so Skyshifter and I are as prepared as possible before co-nominating this at FAC. I think I'll let Skyshifter handle the comments, as it's their GAN, but either of you can feel free to ping me if you'd like my input. TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! I've got that stored in the back of my mind. Good luck you two! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:44, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

Lead

Background and development

Composition

I rewrote two sentences, feel free to revert or tweak them to your liking.

Looks good!

Songs

Tracks 1–5

This read quite nicely, each song flows well from development tidbits to critical commentary! As well, seemingly no MOS issues. I did another round of copyediting, but nothing stood out as major enough to put down here. Of course, please revert anything you disagree with.

Tracks 6–12

Release and promotion

Critical reception

Legacy

I saw no issues during a copyedit, it reads very nicely. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

Seems good.

Chart performance

Seems good.

Verifiable with no original research

Without a doubt, the sourcing looks great. For anything potentially questionable, only Robinson's words are being used. The citations are incredibly even, both for the development and analysis of the album. I believe the Vice and AXS reviews are alright, Vice is fairly prominent, as is the author, and Villa has written for so very many RSs. The other Vice articles are used sparingly and would seem difficult to replace without some refbombing. The Spectrum Culture article is more on the questionable side (no consensus on the RSN), but it has an editorial staff and decent reputation so it should be fine. Very low Earwig score of 30%, and the top results are only attributed quotes. Ideas are blended nicely and the attention to paraphrasing is very commendable!

Spot-check

I plan to check as many as possible, starting small.

Broad in its coverage

Really good on this front. Nothing feels missing, and each section is proportional to eachother as well as the sourcing. To repeat from below, the representation of sources is so very balanced. I've tried my hand at looking for some, and nothing stands out. The most detailed unused one is this Complex article/interview, however a good bit of it is "Background" and a lot of its contents are already substituted in the article; I wouldn't leave this as a suggestion. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the use of some offline sources is nice as well! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

I don't have much to say here, the article feels really balanced. The representation of sources definitely helps with this, they all seem attributed where necessary. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stable

Well this is a given; no recent content disputes or edit wars. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated

Realistically, this is all quite good. All of the media enhances the article, the logomark is quite clever. Some suggestions for FAC:

Summary

I figured this review would go smoother in batches, I'll look at sourcing, images, breadth, etc. as I go. In the meantime, don't mind my pickiness! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A "Personnel" section could be an option. See this image on Discogs. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh that's nice! That means some unsourced sample credits can be readded. Skyshiftertalk 10:37, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Skyshiftertalk 10:59, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that's all I've got. I should probably mention that the prose is very smooth, as you said: "flow-y". The paragraphs are easy to follow and specific quotes or examples of broader ideas are used effectively. By my very professional FAC Readiness Verdict™, this article is prepared! Once again, this review has been a pleasure, and I wish you two good luck with getting this to TFA! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 23:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.