Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:30, 26 July 2014

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Misplaced Pages's best work, and is therefore expected to meet the criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. After one of the FAC coordinators promotes the article or archives the nomination, a bot will update the nomination page and article talk page. Do not manually update the {{Article history}} template when the FAC closes.

	Of Human Feelings 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 25, 2013 Good article nominee Listed October 16, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 30, 2013 Featured article candidate Not promoted January 12, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted February 1, 2014 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current status: Good article

Albums GA‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Jazz GA‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JazzWikipedia:WikiProject JazzTemplate:WikiProject JazzJazz GA This article has been rated as GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool based on the length of the article. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

Template:Maintained

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Of Human Feelings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tomica (talk · contribs) 08:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have read the whole article and the prose is simply flawless. It's beyond satisfactory of a GA level written article. There were some WP:OVERLINK that I fixed, but the rest references, images, samples is fine. I am passing the article. — Tomíca 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Last sentence in Critical reception

Does the last line in #Critical reception place too much emphasis on Christgau's "A+" or misrepresent what the Press-Telegram said about "the ultimate accolade", as Flow Ridian expressed concern about here? IMO, "ultimate accolade" is not synonymous with "highest grade", which is made abundantly clear by the source in the sentence right before the reference to "the ultimate accolade": "Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus. The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include the Clash's album London Calling, the Ornette Coleman album Of Human Feelings..." There's no reason for the source to reiterate the fact that an "A+" is Christgau's highest grade, and since it's better for the flow of the first paragraph's summary of Christgau's review to omit the rating, the last "accolade"-related paragraph seems the best place to mention it and the Press-Telegram's characterization of it, which as the source mentions is in the context of "rock criticism" (). Thoughts? Dan56 (talk) 23:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I also want to point out that it wouldn't make sense for the Press-Telegram to point out that an "A+" is the final/highest grade/accolade in a letter grade system known to most of their (presumably American) readers, along with them having already outlined the range of Christgau's letter grades in the preceding sentence. Dan56 (talk) 18:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Xgau is probably the most important pop/rock critic of all time; his influence was probably even more profound at that time when there was less music journalism (now we have an abundance of online and print sources). The importance of him awarding an "A+" should be mentioned when so many good albums tend to fall into "A" or "A-". His ranking system has even been analysed in books like Music and Politics by John Street, who discusses the nature of the "A+" and compares this with methods used by Q. —JennKR | ☎ 11:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't debating Christgau's notability, I was suggesting that the article strays wildly off-topic and off-source in an attempt to assert his importance. I would also like to point out that JennKR was canvassed to this discussion by Dan56. Flow Ridian (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't presume to know my intent or what this was "an attempt" at; I found the source by researching the album through Google News Archive. "Wildly off-topic" is exaggerating this, and you have yet to respond to any of the points I made above. Dan56 (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

My position isn't complicated, Dan56. The source is referring to Christgau's "ultimate accolade", not the ultimate accolade in all of music, as though Christgau is the final word and his approval is more highly desired than any other. You are reading this wrong and misrepresenting what the source states. Your attempt to analyze the intent of the anonymous author is a massive logic fail. Why not allow others - who you do not canvass - to weigh-in, since we are obviously not gong to agree on this point. Flow Ridian (talk) 20:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I solicited comments from editors listed on my watchlist of articles who either "have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" or are "known for expertise in the field", i.e. WP:MUSIC, WP:ALBUMS, etc. (WP:CAN#Appropriate notification) Dan56 (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

So you asked JennKR to comment here within two hours of them lavishing you with praise on your talk page, but you assumed them to be a neutral party in a dispute between you and me? Really? Flow Ridian (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that you've spammed almost 100 people to review this article. Flow Ridian (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

You need to calm down, sir. Your complaint about "spamming" was addressed and found to be perfectly acceptable by two editors commenting at the very discussion you linked (), so why are you digging for something personal or conduct-related to undermine and distract from the substance of this discussion? And as is the case with even the most experienced editors, JennKR and I have disagreed in the past, most recently at Parallel Lines and I Am... Sasha Fierce, but I trust they're experienced, especially in this field. I'll make this simpler for you and us to move on with the rest of the FAC review regardless of the outcome here. Dan56 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Poll/consensus for keeping "which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade'"

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Society, sports, and culture Media, the arts, and architecture Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The original text:

CHRISTGAU'S GUIDE: Anyone with more than a passing interest in rock criticism should investigate ``Christgau's Record Guide: The 80's (Pantheon), Robert Christgau's collection of some 3,000 reviews of rock albums released in the last 10 years. Each album is given a grade on a scale ranging from A-plus to E-minus.

Most of the reviews and their accompanying grades, some of which have been revised, originally appeared in The Village Voice in Christgau's monthly ``Consumer Guide column. Quirky and opinionated, they exemplify passionate, informed polemical criticism. Although Christgau takes the formal values of popular music into consideration, they tend to count less than the political and social ramifications of popular music. The grades dished out by the critic, a self-proclaimed leftie, are as much moral judgments as they are esthetic evaluations. Christgau is among the few music critics who can rightfully say he has listened to almost every pop record released, and his tastes are comprehensive.

The 18 records given the ultimate accolade - an A-plus - include the Clash's album ``London Calling (Epic), the Ornette Coleman album ``Of Human Feelings (Antilles), Bruce Springsteen's ``Born in the U.S.A. (Columbia), Prince's ``Sign o' the Times (Paisley Park), Public Enemy's ``It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back and the Beastie Boys' ``Licensed to Ill, both from Def Jam Records.

This is an RfC to determine if the cited source – quoted above – is stating:

• That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" in music journalism, or
• That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he awards?

!votes and comments

• A support !vote here indicates that you agree with Dan56's interpretation and application of the Press-Telegram source so that it is used to assert that the "ultimate accolade" in music criticism is an A+ grade from Robert Christgau.
• An oppose !vote here indicates that you disagree with Dan56's interpretation and application of the Press-Telegram source and believe that the anonymous writer is asserting that the "ultimate accolade" refers to the highest honor that Robert Christgau gives, not that it's the highest honor in music journalism.

Support - As mentioned in my opening comments, the Press-Telegram introduces their column in the context of "Anyone with more than a passing interest in rock criticism...", and the sentence directly before "the ultimate accolade" characterization already shows that an "A+" is the highest grade in the grading scheme/range, so it's unlikely the source is referring to it as Christgau's "ultimate accolade" or to reiterate this is the highest grade. Furthermore, this characterization ties into this WP article's paragraph on accolades given to the album. Dan56 (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - The cited source, which is Press-Telegram via an anonymous writer, is not calling an A+ grade from Christgau the "ultimate accolade" in all of music journalism, it's saying that Christgau's ultimate accolade is an A+. Even it if was saying what Dan56 thinks it's saying, this is an extremely bold claim to reproduce from what's essentially an advertisement for one of Christgau's books. This isn't critical commentary from a respected music journalist. For all we know, it's a PR price written by Christgau's publisher. Per WP:EXCEPTIONAL, "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources". (original emphasis) Flow Ridian (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - Thank you for inviting my participation Dan, but I'm afraid I disagree with your interpretation, going only by the above excerpt from the cited source. (I do not have a subscription to that source - thank you for providing the excerpt!) I seem incapable of brevity, so I have italicized the two key reasons for my vote - ambiguity and bias. First, I think we all need to acknowledge that the pertinent sentence in the source is worded ambiguously, and it could be interpreted linguistically in either way. (So yeah, I'm saying you're both right. :P) Ambiguity of that sort weakens the case for an absolute statement that the source considers it the ultimate accolade in music criticism. The source equally states the alternate interpretation - that it is the ultimate of Christgau's accolades only. The context of the statement is all we have, and that is clearly subject to interpretation as well. What that leaves us with is opinion. This ambiguity alone, IMO, refutes the text as it currently stands in the article, that the source considers it the ultimate accolade period. That is not clearly stated in the one source given. An ambiguous statement in the source, no matter how reliable the source is, cannot support an absolute statement in the article. Second, the source says Christgau's reviews and grading are very biased:

"Quirky and opinionated, exemplify passionate, informed polemical criticism. Although Christgau takes the formal values of popular music into consideration, they tend to count less than the political and social ramifications of popular music. The grades dished out by the critic, a self-proclaimed leftie, are as much moral judgments as they are esthetic evaluations."

This source is telling us that Christgau's reviews are inherently biased by his own opinions of "the political and social ramifications of popular music." A critical accolade that is based less on "the formal values of popular music" than on "the political and social ramifications of popular music" (as the source describes Christgau's reviews) can only be an accolade of the sociopolitical impact of a piece of popular music, colored by the intrinsic value of the music itself. It cannot be an accolade based on the quality of the recorded music. The anonymous author of the source seems quite fond of Christgau's reviews, but the source is also saying that "the formal values" of the music mean less than its sociopolitical impact - that Christgau's reviews are heavily biased ("heavily" because the source says the music matters less than the politics). This stated bias in favor of the author's politics would seem, IMO, to make Christgau's reviews less than the ultimate word in music criticism, and any grade he gives as less than the ultimate grade (though the source says the grades are based "as much" on the music and the sociopolitical factors, not "less than," as are his reviews). I therefore think it less likely that a music writer would describe such a heavily biased reviewer and grading system as the source describes as awarding the "ultimate accolade" in music journalism. Dcs002 (talk) 01:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Oppose using this low-quality anonymous source to make an extremely exceptional and contentious claim. I would go one step further than Flow Ridian and Dcs002 and contend that the prose only supports that an A+ is the "ultimate accolade" in Christgau's Record Guide: The 80's. That's all the source gives us, because that's all the source is talking about, this one book. To read into it to the extent that an A+ grade from Christgau is the ultimate accolade in music journalism is just plain silly, and it's likely confirmation bias on Dan56's part. Dcs002 makes excellent points about ambiguity and bias: the cited source describes Christgau's reviews as inherently biased, and the cited source is obviously ambiguous at best regarding what the "ultimate accolade" actually means. These are reasons enough to oppose Dan56's application of the anonymous source. Harmelodix (talk) 18:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please don't muddy the waters by debating people's !votes. Let's have a polite discussion in this sub-secion instead. Flow Ridian (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Likewise ;) Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There's a potential problem with this poll. The heading says this is a Poll/consensus for keeping 'which the Press-Telegram called 'the ultimate accolade.'" However, immediately above the !votes and comments heading, we find:

This is an RfC to determine if the cited source – quoted above – is stating:

• That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" in music journalism, or
• That an A+ grade from Robert Christgau is the "ultimate accolade" that he awards?

I saw this definition first, and it took me a while to figure out exactly what it meant to support or oppose something rather than saying I agree with the first interpretation or the second. But I'm unique, and maybe it's just me who gets confused so easily, but when determining consensus, you might want to be sure to read and understand the text and make sure the votes are counted properly - if it comes down to majority rules, that is. Dcs002 (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• I'm curious, Dcs002, because above you say that Dan56 "invited" you to this discussion, but I don't see the diff where Dan56 contacted you at your talk page. Did he contact you at you talk page, or did he send you an e-mail inviting you? Flow Ridian (talk) 16:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It's there, at his talk page. Dan56 (talk) 17:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

The RfC notices have already gone out, so why are you "recruiting" anyone at this point? Why can't you ever allow a discussion to unfold without cherry-picking who shows up to comment? Harmelodix (talk) 18:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

How about checking the time of that invite before making any dillhole accusations by way of following my activities, again? Dan56 (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured article candidates
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Music good articles
• GA-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles
• GA-Class Jazz articles
• Low-importance Jazz articles
• WikiProject Jazz album articles
• WikiProject Jazz articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment