Talk:Richard D. James Album

Richard D. James Album is currently an Albums good article nominee. Nominated by lunaeclipse ⚧ ^(talk) at 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Richard D. James Album (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 22 August 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Albums

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 articles

Electronic music High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Ewing, Tom (1999). "10 Years, 100 Albums, 1000 Words". Freaky Trigger. Archived from the original on April 16, 2000. Retrieved June 15, 2021. 15. Aphex Twin - Richard D James Album (Unashamedly gorgeous, liberated musicmaking: lush)
Ewing, Tom (6 December 1999). "Tom Ewing's Top 100 Singles Of The 90s: 12. APHEX TWIN – "Girl/Boy Song"". Freaky Trigger. Retrieved 1 April 2023.
https://www.musicradar.com/news/aphex-twin-wanted-to-buy-a-submarine
https://www.aphextwin.nu/learn/98136316866813.shtml
https://www.aphextwin.nu/learn/98136297669760.shtml
https://www.aphextwin.nu/learn/98136116397220.shtml
https://lannerchronicle.wordpress.com/interviews/
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=FA8EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA79&dq=richard+d+james+album&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiMlsr0iqyIAxW9WEEAHf1rBO8Q6AF6BAgIEAI#v=onepage&q=richard%20d%20james%20album&f=false (better us chart thing)

Archives

1

B-class

How much work does this article need to reach B-class? I can't find any reliable sources about copies sold, background or release. – electricController 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To get it to be B-class, I would suggest posting the album at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and note you are looking for a B-class review, someone will take a peak at it from there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: Thank you. – electricController 18:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Great work on taking a step forward on this article. I think its looking fairly good but I'd suggest we combine the smaller sections unless you think they will be expanded further. Sections that are only one paragraph or less long usually look "unfinished" even if its all the information we can get. I often combine "release and reception" sections if the albums I review don't really chart or get re-released or whatever. Might be an idea here, but no real pressure. Great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Great suggestion. – electricController 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard D. James Album/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this pretty soon.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Well-written

The reception section is good. Currently looking through other parts.
I feel that the Release section should be rejigged; Music & Media (cited in sales box) notes how it was Warp Records best-selling release at that point with 100,000 copies sold, and this 1997 interview decipts RDJ's suprise at this. Also; the chart information mentioned in the lead should be referenced in the "release section" as well.
no pagenumbers for Kirn 2011?

Accuracy/Verifiability/Spotchecks

The "Usage In Media" section mostly appears to be original research (WP:OR) save for the references on "4" and "Girl/Boy Song" which could be better incorporated into the article (i'm still writing so give me a second to explain myself)
earwig copyvio checks out.

NPOV

pending, reception is good though

Stability

Appears to be since August 22.

Illustrations/Images

Artwork and images of plug n Squarepusher are all appropriately rationaled; no problems there.
"4" audio sample appears to be 10 seconds too long per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, but it passed review. (states that 10% of song should be used. "4" is 3:37 or 217 seconds long, and 10% of that is 21.7 seconds) Not sure about this one, I'll ponder.

Going through still // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]