Content deleted Content added
→Lead: addendum |
→Lead: r |
||
Line 47: | Line 47: | ||
* Condensed the details about certifications because why does it matter that BPI certified the album platinum in 2013, and really, ''why'' does this part of the lead need to be almost 40 words long when it's easily summarized in 14? |
* Condensed the details about certifications because why does it matter that BPI certified the album platinum in 2013, and really, ''why'' does this part of the lead need to be almost 40 words long when it's easily summarized in 14? |
||
[[User:ILIL|ilil]] ([[User talk:ILIL|talk]]) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
[[User:ILIL|ilil]] ([[User talk:ILIL|talk]]) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC) |
||
:Well, I hope you apply the same level of discernment regarding points being overstated and concerns over length to lead sections such as [[Pet Sounds]]. |
|||
:If anything's overstated or repetitious, of course it should be fixed. Leads are very tricky, and part of the problem relates to that first issue – how the opening paragraph should introduce and summarise the most important points of an album's notability. Personally, I don't agree that giving UK and US chart peaks there is a must. It's something I'd expect to read about after an overview of the album's content and recording. |
|||
:To dismiss the significance of the international standardisation with an assumption that Americans knew the tracks anyway completely misses the point that for over twenty years, American listeners viewed them in the context of ''Yesterday and Today''. As no end of sources state, each Beatles album was a key event in listeners' lives; in their minds, each song was welded to the tracks around it. The 1987 CDs demanded a recalibration in the way the band's contemporary US audience heard albums like ''Revolver''. That point was underplayed in the main text, admittedly, and I've since added more from Riley and Everett. But, you know, if you're going to work on what you consider "doubtful", it would help if you had some knowledge in depth. I rarely find you do when it comes to non-Beach Boys music articles, so the more you push your understanding of a subject, the more it reveals a [[WP:INCOMPETENT|basic lack of competence]]. [[User:JG66|JG66]] ([[User talk:JG66|talk]]) 05:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:48, 6 August 2019
![]() | Revolver (Beatles album) 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. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Lead
I don't believe this lead is very good (its waffling has annoyed me for a while) so I'm just going to list why I made these changes and maybe we can find some compromise
- First paragraph, per MOS:BEGIN, should introduce and summarize the most important points of an album's notability. This means a brief explanation of critical/commercial reaction and historical significance. Revolver is not notable simply for having "diverse sounds" and for those three arbitrarily-chosen tracks. I also don't understand how it's never mentioned in the lead that Revolver is one of the most acclaimed works in popular music.
Second paragraph
- Removed "and the increasing sophistication of the Beatles' lyrics to address themes including" simply because it's a jumbled phrase, and we don't need to repeatedly state "the Beatles are improving as artists" anyway.
- Added a mention of Emerick and Martin as part of the album's key production staff since the album's production and engineering is integral to its historical significance.
- Removed "particularly ADT" because I couldn't find a source in the article that states ADT is more prevalent than close audio miking. Not only is it a questionable claim anyway, it's not much of a valuable point to measure the ubiquity of these practices against each other, they're obviously all very common techniques now.
- Changed "varispeeding" to "varispeed" because I'm not sure "varispeeding" is a real word.
Third paragraph'
- Revised "Together with the children's novelty song "Yellow Submarine", "Eleanor Rigby" became an international hit when issued as a double A-side single." because the syntax is just poor.
- Considering the lead is already pushing its length, I don't believe it's crucial to note that the album was the last Beatles album to have a modified track listing in the US. It's enough to simply state that it was modified; the only point that matters is that American and British audiences initially got different versions of the album. Likewise, it's doubtful that the 1987 CD issue was as earth-shattering to listeners as suggested by a handful of critics. It's not like Americans were hearing those three tracks for the first time.
Fourth paragraph
- Swapped out "compositional form" with "production techniques" because there is no discussion of Revolver's innovations in compositional form.
- Removed "surpassing Sgt. Pepper's" because it's redundant; we just finished saying that critics recognize Revolver as the best Beatles album, yes, of course that includes Sgt. Pepper.
- Condensed the details about certifications because why does it matter that BPI certified the album platinum in 2013, and really, why does this part of the lead need to be almost 40 words long when it's easily summarized in 14?
ilil (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I hope you apply the same level of discernment regarding points being overstated and concerns over length to lead sections such as Pet Sounds.
- If anything's overstated or repetitious, of course it should be fixed. Leads are very tricky, and part of the problem relates to that first issue – how the opening paragraph should introduce and summarise the most important points of an album's notability. Personally, I don't agree that giving UK and US chart peaks there is a must. It's something I'd expect to read about after an overview of the album's content and recording.
- To dismiss the significance of the international standardisation with an assumption that Americans knew the tracks anyway completely misses the point that for over twenty years, American listeners viewed them in the context of Yesterday and Today. As no end of sources state, each Beatles album was a key event in listeners' lives; in their minds, each song was welded to the tracks around it. The 1987 CDs demanded a recalibration in the way the band's contemporary US audience heard albums like Revolver. That point was underplayed in the main text, admittedly, and I've since added more from Riley and Everett. But, you know, if you're going to work on what you consider "doubtful", it would help if you had some knowledge in depth. I rarely find you do when it comes to non-Beach Boys music articles, so the more you push your understanding of a subject, the more it reveals a basic lack of competence. JG66 (talk) 05:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)