Talk:Heaven or Las Vegas/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Nominator: Cathodography (talk · contribs) 04:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: ALittleClass (talk · contribs) 07:09, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Going to review this within the next 2 days.

@ALittleClass: it’s been roughly a week and a half. mftp dan ^oops 20:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MFTP Dan i’m probably going to either fail this review or try to transfer to this to a new reviewer, because I don’t think I have the capacity to review this currently. ALittleClass (talk) 20:40, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Better to do the latter than fail it and reset the queue. Or, better yet, I’ll volunteer. mftp dan ^oops 20:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you’d like to volunteer to review this, feel free to take it. If not, I’ll find someone willing. ALittleClass (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing. Thank you for responsibly surrendering the review, I’ll take it from here. mftp dan ^oops 00:23, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I’ll start by checking basic integrity of the references. The sources chosen are of high quality reliability.

• Ref 14 is completely inaccessible.
• Ref 29 is dead; you have an archive, but all you need to do is change the parameter to reflect the archive in the main link.
• Ref 51 is incomplete. As it is, there is no author, date of publication or archive. Author is required at minimum, recommend completing the whole thing. Also, it should simply be Paste across the board, not Paste Magazine.

I notice you apparently have access to Newspapers.com. You’ve not included quite a few notable articles on the album, is there a reason that is? mftp dan ^oops 01:55, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I probably focused on Newspapers.com because I was concentrating on describing the characteristics of the album’s songs. The ones I overlooked were inefficient to incorporate meaningfully into the article. Cattos^💭 13:31, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw at least a few that I’d have recommended for inclusion. I have a list saved at home, I’ll add them here when I see it again. mftp dan ^oops 17:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll start reading it in the next couple days. mftp dan ^oops 01:44, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Been almost a week myself, I’ll start actually reviewing the body today and have it done by tomorrow. mftp dan ^oops 00:10, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could use light streamlining.

• I am not a fan of listing genres of bands in the lead section of articles about recordings. Technically, the lead label needs to be sourced in the article that they are a dream pop band, but I think it just presents itself better by omitting it in recordings.
• No need to differentiate the studio, just say September Sound and pipe the link to Eel Pie.
• Opening sentence of the third paragraph uses too many “ands”. The second clause should use a comma instead.
• “according to Billboard is unnecessary for the lead.

• The single information was changed on 18 November not to reflect the source given; there’s nothing stating it was a US-only promotional single and was correctly cited the first time. Please either revert that edit, or find a new source showing they are correct.
• Link Carolyn’s Fingers.
• Better wording for “brought on” would be “hired”. Incidentally, reference number 2, can you quote me the relevant cited material in this discussion page?
  • Done. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to Rock’s Backpages anymore since it hit the expiration date on November.

• The recording sessions took place at Eel Pie Studios (then September Sound) in Twickenham, London, located in a space owned by Pete Townshend. Can you please quote the relevant material from ref 6? Ref 7 technically does not support the sentence with precision enough to my liking. The reference states once owned by Pete Townshend, leaving ambiguous if it was in fact owned by him at the time. It also doesn’t mention the Eel Pie name, so the sentence may need different sources or writing depending on what I get from 6.
  • None of the sources mention the town Twickenham or clarify that Townshend was the owner at the time. I rephrased the sentence to reflect that.
    • Two things: the studio shouldn’t be captioned as Eel Pie as the only mention of that name. The good news: I’ve found a source which mentions all of this. A 1993 interview with Select, formerly uploaded to the band’s website, bails us out. [1] mftp dan ^oops 13:35, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Attribute Gary Walker’s publication in the text.
• You can just write Ivor, no need for the full name since you just said it.
• Ref 9 has insufficient formatting details.
• The album’s drum programming was done by Guthrie, the first step in every Cocteau Twins recording session. → “As with each of the group’s recording sessions, production began with Guthrie’s drum programming.”
• In a musical context, I think “composed” is preferable word choice to “constructed”, though you may feel free to disagree on this one if you wish.
• Many of the “mysterious” instrumental effects on Heaven or Las Vegas were achieved by accident, using guitars rather than “omnipresent” synthesisers. And that’s why I love this album. Classic. No action needed here, just felt the need to highlight it.
• Not a GA criterion, but a housekeeping nitpick: I would encourage you to rearrange references so that when you put multiple at the end of a sentence to have them in numerical order if they’ve been defined earlier in the article.

• During the band’s narcotic periods …what do you mean by this? I understand it probably references Guthrie because I’ve been reading this top to bottom, but this is hyper-context-specific word choice, can you express it clearer?
• Can you quote me relevant material in the second instance of ref 14? I’d like to see if I could recommend better use of that material.
• Attribution should be given to the quote beyond just the reference.

• more tangible emotional depth than what, precisely? Blue Bell Knoll?
• The following sentence speaks in first person, but there’s no attribution. Fix that please.
  • Just noticed his name is “Martin Aston”…Aston Martin, lol. Very funny parents he had.
• In the second paragraph, “Cherry Coloured Funk” should be “Cherry-Coloured Funk”
• lyrics delivered in an unusually clear manner needs additional perspective; compared to what exactly, from the standpoint of someone who hasn’t heard the Twins’ music? For Fraser’s standard, presumably?

• repressed and re-pressed mean two very different things; you definitely want the latter.
• There is an enormous amount of quoting from Guthrie in this section. Can you tone it down and paraphrase it a little bit? Surely we do not need all of that.
• The final artwork is… better would be The result was…

 Working

• Martin Aston’s Q… oh, so that’s who he writes for. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
• You are very quote heavy, to the point that it’s excessive. Can you re-write some of these to get the same message across? I’m going to pause reviewing this section until you bring it down a little bit. No sense in me critiquing the writing of things that may not be there at all afterward.

Good