Talk:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today

Personnel

Hi. I've been trying to figure out if this is a complete listing of technical personnel, but I can't find a source for the personnel here. :) If that's complete, the article is a B. If it's not, it should be a C. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Personnel I got that from the sources listed; mainly Leo Abrahams' weblog. My guess is that is complete, but otherwise, we probably won't know until the album is released on the 18. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

GA

Procedurally, would you please relist this so I can promote it? The referencing, prose, and coverage are all excellent. Slight deviation from the manual of style, but I approve (being a hyphen Luddite). One suggestion would be to fill in some of the redlinks, at least with stubs. But that isn't an obstacle to promotion. Fine work. Hamlet, Prince of Trollmark (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editprotected}} Edit notice Please add an edit notice for this page consisting of {{AmE}}, so editors will know that this article is in American English. Considering the nationalities of the artists and its subject matter, it's reasonable that someone may think that it should be in British English. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

why is it in AmE? openstrings 05:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

AmE Because I'm an American. Byrne is Anglo-American and the album was recorded half in the States and half in the UK; it would be entirely legitimate for it to be in British English and so I could easily see someone thinking that it is or should be. The only other time I have requested an editnotice was for George Orwell bibliography, where I am an American, but the topic is clearly about a Briton, so it should probably be in British English. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews

I've removed the GA reviews transcluded from this page. Does anyone object? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure Here's a link: Talk:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/GA1, rather than a transclusion, for anyone who wants to read it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup:

One of problems is: A lot of underlines need to be removed. I added the Cleanup template as a result. 1007D (talk) 01:12, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

What? What do you mean? Give me an example, please... —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Post-FAC review

As promised on User:Karanacs' talk page, I was interested in reviewing this article at FAC but didn't have a chance, so here's my look (briefer than I would like, but hopefully can give some helpful pointers in further improving the article. I'll see about going more line-by-line when and if I have time.)

• Media: Considering you have File:David Byrne and Brian Eno -- Everything That Happens Will Happen Today Album Cover.jpg, I'm not sure that File:David Byrne and Brian Eno - Everything That Happens Will Happen Today deluxe.jpg and File:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today closeup.png meet the threshold set by WP:NFCC.
  • Also, looking at the song clips, I'm not entirely sold on the use of File:David Byrne and Brian Eno - Life Is Long.ogg and File:David Byrne and Brian Eno - Strange Overtones.ogg. There's info on elements in the songs, yes, but considering there's nothing in the way of critical commentary to these elements in the article I'm not sure it then "significantly" improves understanding. On a technical standpoint, you could probably boost the bit rate slightly (to say, 96KBps) to clear up aspects of the song, and adding short crossfades to the beginning and end would feel more polished (e.g., File:Finish the fight-halo 3.ogg).
• There's some weird linking going on: for instance, My Life in the Bush of Ghosts is linked (as it should be) in the lead, but not in its first mention in the body, then it's linked again far later. See WP:LINK on how you should structure internal links for maximum helpfulness.
• In terms of prose, the main issues I see are convoluted sentence structures and unnecessary words. For example: "Byrne took a Compact Disc of the demos from Eno and spent about a year trying to write lyrics to finish the songs, attempting to balance the simple chords that Eno had written with the more complex ones that Byrne prefers." You can cut a word here and there and the overall effect is to make the prose much clearer, tighter, and easy to read. Words and phrases like "some", "a number of", "several", "a few", "many", "any", and "all" usually aren't necessary and can be cut. Take a look at User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing and follow along; it takes a while, but if you distance yourself from your writing for a few weeks or a month and come back, awkward phrases and fluffy turns of phrase become much easier to spot and kill.
  • Other prose things: by definition (or for encyclopedic purposes) a paragraph has at minimum three sentences: topic, supporting, closing/transition. There are places in the article where one or two-sentence "quasi-paragraphs" should be merged, expanded, or cut; for example, is the one-line "Although it was released digitally one day prior, this album is the second release from Byrne's vanity label Todo Mundo after Big Love: Hymnal; copies of the CD were catalogued CD-TODO-002" and the (unsourced) catalogue paragraph that follows really that important?
  • For the reception: name those critics! It's bothersome that quotes are thrown out but we have no idea who said what and how many people said what. "One weakness addressed by several reviewers"→which ones? Once again I'm going to point you to video games, but (IMO) the reception section to Halo 3: ODST show more or less the balance of how to generalize statements versus call out reviewers. Since we can't accurately give the consensus of all reviewers, or even all or most reliable critics, we've got to admit our limitations.
  • It seems odd to me that marketing and promotion comes after the "release" and "reception" sections; I really feel like it should be before (although maybe some of the tours should be split after).
• I'll try and add when I have time. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S., if I don't add anything, just know I'm not watching this page so pinging me on my talk is the better way to get my attention. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 01:22, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians Y No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS Hurrah! Everything seems cited and all leaks are filled up. I think the personnel section could be cleaned up a wee bit and the whole thing may be a bit image heavy, but is all coverable. After the release of this is calmed down give it a peer review before submitting for a GA! Great job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC) GA comments: GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Everything That Happens Will Happen Today/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Quite a lot of hard work went into this page and it shows. I have two concerns: one small and one large. The small one is that this could use a little light copyediting. The prose is generally good yet has a bit more punctuation than necessary. I wouldn't hold off on promoting it over that. Several of the citations, though, raise questions about reliable sourcing. The first one that raised an eyebrow was the Talking-Heads.net bulletin board. Then a couple of blogs (particularly Peter Chilvers and Leo Abrahams) which might be citable if these individuals are prominent enough in the field to be considered experts--not quite my specialty here so please explain why you consider them citable. Also some of the pieces in article format leave me with doubts about whether the content was vetted. For example, I checked the Topspin site description and read "Topspin is a media technology company dedicated to developing leading-edge marketing software and services that help artists and their partners build businesses and brands. We help artists manage their catalogs, connect with fans, and generate demand for music." That gives the impression more of a marketing partnership than a journalism venture. Also justpressplay.net appears to be a membership site where members self-publish reviews. There might be other questionable citations of this sort--suggest a double check of everything not cited to BBC, major newspapers, and the like. The article might need to be shortened if some of this material cannot be reverified elsewhere. Please contact me when you're ready for a second review. Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC) No improvements to sourcing concerns in over three weeks. Failing for now; please try again when ready. DurovaCharge! 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Response Thanks I have been the main contributor to this article and I was the one who requested the review. When it was reviewed, I was not editing Wikipedia, so I did not make the requested changes until now: I have removed dubious citations, including the review from JustPressPlay (as noted, this is not a professional review.) Regarding the blogs of Peter Chilvers and Leo Abrahams: these men are not necessarily "prominent enough in the field to be considered experts" (they are professional musicians, though), but they worked on the album. Consequently, they are experts about the narrow topic of the production of this album - they were there. Your concern about Topspin's site is that it is a "marketing partnership [rather] than a journalism venture." This is also true, but as noted in the prior comment, they are notable in terms of marketing for the album, since they did it. They are only cited in terms of their own marketing strategy, so they are not relied on for matters where they are not reputable. I have gone over the text a couple of times to tighten it up and remove minor grammatical and syntactical problems; I will continue to do so over the next day or two. As I posted on Durova's user talk, if he feels comfortable simply vetting it again and passing it for the GA review, then I appreciate his time. If he wants me to re-submit again, I will do that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:29, 8 August 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 14:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)