Jump to content

Talk:Geogaddi

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pronunciation

[edit]

Would one pronounce it "Gee - o - GADDY," or "Gee - O - gaddi?" (The capitalized syllables would have the emphasis)

I don't believe it's ever been clarified; they have specifically left the meaning of the title ambiguous. Personally, I use the former pronunciation. Pimlottc 13:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Critical Reception section

[edit]

It's disastrous. Somebody simply quoted several media critics and slopped them all together. If somebody ever has the opportunity, he or she should tidy that portion up. I can't do it at the moment because I'm quite busy, but maybe I will in the future if no one else does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutterbutterz95 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "trivia"

[edit]

Apparently someone thought it a good idea to bastardize a well written Boards related article by removing information relative to the record, including its thematic concept. This edit can only be undone manually, obviously, and while the unsourced information should not be retained, I believe far more properly sourced information was cut out than necessary. The point is to be informative, at least enough so that your average listener doesn't need to head on over to a band-specific wiki to get information that has a place here - the quote describing the concept behind the record is not exactly "trivia", even if it is not absolutely necessary - there is no reason to cut down the relevant, well written and sourced pieces of information. Countless albums of varying notability follow the standard format that often includes at least one section for information re: theme, tone and composition, influences, events that occurred during the conception and production of the album, etc. - this is preferable.

The article should be improved upon with the omission of that which is not relevant or sourced and that's about it. I would suggest working to restore the article to its previous state with that in mind this time around. I would also suggest that

Just my two cents. I would also like to suggest the genre remains as it is, despite the fact that it is effectively without a genre, as requiring sources for these labels (applied not by the band but by other publications or critics here, which apparently makes more sense than just putting down what the consensus is) means that in most cases, you can't say much more than "Boards of Canada" in response to the genre. The previous descriptions of Ambient Techno/IDM, Dark Ambient and Downtempo are all perfectly applicable, just as much as any other similar descriptor, but it is better the 'genre' stays "Electronic", as someone will unquestionably cry "genre warring", which remains one of the most pointless and redundant things people do around here, but whatever.

-Swim Jonse (currently not logged in) 72.200.69.99 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Swim Jonse: We might as well ping the person who made the edit you're talking about, Andrzejbanas. It doesn't look like any of the material that was sourced was removed -- except for one line which cited only a forum. One could argue the red pen was pressed a little hard, but in general the removals don't look inappropriate. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much what was said above by Rhodo! Whether or not the information was correct, valid, or well written. Its unsourced and was placed there, had tons of time to be sourced, never was. So it should be removed. If you want it back, find the source instead of trying to support articles that fail WP:RS and WP:OR. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Geogaddi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. Spinixster (chat!) 11:28, 15 March 2024 (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
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Geogaddi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Spinixster (talk · contribs) 02:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davest3r08: I'll be reviewing this article. This may take a while.

  • Infobox and lead
    • As opposed to putting references in the infobox, I'd recommend switching it to prose in the body.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was released on 13 February 2002 in Japan, then five days later in Europe, by Warp. I'd rephrase it to something like It was originally released on 13 February 2002 in Japan and in Europe five days later by Warp Records. With this sentence, it is clearer that Warp is a record label. The sentence may change depending on who released the album in Japan (see Release section below)  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was recorded between 1999 and 2001 at Hexagon Sun. I'd recommend expanding the sentence with details of Hexagon Sun (where is it, clarify that it's a studio, etc.) I'd also link Hexagon Sun.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The album is darker in tone than their debut studio album Music Has the Right to Children, released in 1998. Per WP:SYNTH, I'd recommend rephrasing to imply that the band wanted a different approach to their previous album or the album is intended to be darker in tone (the quote does not say that it is meant to be darker in tone than the previous album), if that's what the sentence is based off.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The album contains references to the Branch Davidians, Satanism, and numerology. This sentence can be expanded to include how these references are made.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background and composition
    • Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style advice#Background, I'd recommend reintroducing the duo and adding information regarding their previous records that correlates with this album.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does this prose work?

      • Boards of Canada are a Scottish duo composed of brothers Michael Sandison and Marcus Eoin (born Marcus Eoin Sandison), formed initially as a group in 1986 and later as a duo in the 1990s. They started making music during their childhood, using tape decks to do so. Boards of Canada takes their name from the National Film Board Of Canada. They released their debut album Music Has The Right To Children in 1998 to critical acclaim.

        Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Davest3r08, that works. Spinixster (chat!) 00:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Boards of Canada have claimed that the title is a combination of different words with a particular significance, but also that they wanted listeners to decide on their own interpretations of the title as well as the album in total. I suggest making the sentence clearer, because the meaning of "with a particular significance" is lost on me. The original text seems to imply that they want listeners to decide on their own interpretations on the album only, unless I'm missing something.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Michael Sandison, half of the duo, stated that much of the album features acoustic instrumentation, though it may not be immediately evident because of how processed and often faint it is, blending with electronic elements. The original text seems to say "previous records" and not this album specifically. Is there a source that says this album specifically? I suggest replacing the original source with that, if not, it would violate WP:SYNTH. I'd also rephrase so it's based on his point of view because currently it implies that though it may not be immediately evident because of how processed and often faint it is is a fact, which violates WP:UNDUE.
    • They additionally received the idea to make the total album length 66 minutes and 6 seconds from Warp Records president Steve Beckett, with his reasoning being to joke around with listeners and imply that the Devil had been involved with the album's production. This can be condensed to something like Warp Records president Steve Beckett also suggested to make the total album length... so that it's more concise.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Release
    • Do we know which record label or who released the album in Japan? I'd recommend adding it in.

This AllMusic page that is possibly about the Japan version claims it was released there by a label named Vivid. Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone ahead and added the source either way so I'm  Done— Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 23:39, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Track listing
    • According to the source, the duo also produced the tracks. That should be clarified.

 Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing seems okay, no sources seem to be immediate red flags, I just have a few concerns.
    • I do recommend following WP:CITEVAR and make the style of the references consistent (some are missing authors, dates, publications, wikilinks to publications if there are ones, etc.) and switching primary references to secondary whenever possible.
    • What makes Speakeasy.org (reference 8) or its author a reliable source?
    • Reference 5 is a compilation of interviews taken from different sources. I'd recommend replacing it with the original ones.  Done Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, the article has a lot of potential, but parts can definitely be expanded and changed. Source 2 (Stereogum) definitely seems like it could be used a bit more. I'll put this on hold for now. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Spinixster (chat!) 09:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for chiming in while you are still in the process of editing the article, but I'd like to point out that per WP:NOTRSMUSIC, AllMusic genre listings are not reliable. Spinixster (chat!) 13:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done— Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments below.

After these comments are resolved, I have no problem with promoting the article. Spinixster (chat!) 02:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just one more tiny thing, I promise. Mark Robinson's Pitchfork review is unsourced, and you can add the Hexagon Sun detail in the body, too, so citations on the lead won't be needed per WP:LEADCITE. Spinixster (chat!) 01:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spinixster,  Done— Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, passing now. Spinixster (chat!) 11:25, 15 March 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.

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 07:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Improved to Good Article status by Davest3r08 (talk). Self-nominated at 14:07, 15 March 2024 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Geogaddi; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • Article was promoted to GA and the nomination was put in at the proper time. Article is within policy. The only issue here are the hooks, neither of which are of any interest and both of which make a tenuous connection to the number of the beast that isn't supported by the sources. I note that the article itself does not wiki-link to that page. Sometimes a number is just a number, and neither source specifically connects the megabyte size and CD length to the number of the beast. The length of a CD and the megabyte downloads is not particularly interesting. Please propose a better hook.4meter4 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4meter4, ALT1a: ... that Geogaddi makes references to the Branch Davidians and their former leader, David Koresh? Davest3r08 >:) (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Approving hook alt1a which is verifiable to the cited reference and is both interesting and the correct length. This hook can be promoted.4meter4 (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geogaddi&oldid=1218881182"