Talk:Infest the Rats' Nest/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Marcostev88 (talk · contribs) 11:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey! I'm going to conduct the GA review on this article. I will complete this review fully within the next five days.

Thanks for taking this on mate! Please let me know when you are done and I'll address the points. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 1: Well-written

• the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct

Mostly good. Some recommendations:

• "The album was initially believed to be named Auto-Cremate due to the band's use of the name as their username in the AMA, but was later confirmed to be titled Infest the Rats' Nest" -- this line is convoluted. Try this -- "The album was speculated to be titled Auto-Cremate, the band's username on their Reddit AMA." You do not need the clarification that it would be later revealed as Infest the Rats' Nest.
• "Infest the Rats' Nest marked their first extensive use of the style" -- try this: "marked a deeper exploration into the style".
• ""Organ Farmer" addresses intensive farming." and ""Perihelion" has been described as a power metal song." -- these are very short sentences, perhaps add more info from the articles you have cited, or combine into a surrounding sentence.
• "A review in Pitchfork" -- make sure you name the author of the review, Stuart Berman.
• "During a Reddit AMA" -- some people may not know what an AMA is, consider "During a Q&A with fans on Reddit"

Update 23 Jan: Pass!

• it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

Mostly good. Some recommendations:

• Remove citations in infobox for genres, these citations should be placed in the body text instead.
• Remove citations in the lead section, and move them elsewhere in the body text of the article.
• No need to mention Northlane's Alien in the lead section as it is not directly related to the album.
• You should absolutely include a few chart positions in the lead section. This establishes the album as notable. It peaked at number 2 on the ARIA charts and number 5 on the US Independent Albums chart - really good info to include right away. Consider placing this information right after the mention of their ARIA Award nomination in the 2nd paragraph.
• Background and release -- omit the first sentence about their prolific discography. It's not really relevant to this specific album's background. Instead, you could mention the release of Fishing for Fishies, its release and success, and their brief hiatus directly before FFF.
• "band confirmed the next album was in the works" -- avoid "in the works", instead try "the band confirmed the album was in early stages of production".
• At the end of the 'Lyrics' subheading, there is an unnecessary line break.
• No need to mention personnel credits are adapted from liner notes. Marcostev88 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• Under the 'background and release' header, expand the first line about their prolific discography and merge some later paragraphs. Consider using what I've written here, it makes everything seem more connected:

" Australian rock band King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard are known for their prolific discography, and released five albums in 2017, concluding with Gumboot Soup in December. Following a brief hiatus, on 21 January 2019 the band teased their fourteenth studio album, which would later be announced as Fishing for Fishies. Prior to its full release on 26 April 2019, the band surprise-released single "Planet B" on 8 April alongside a music video. The song's exclusion from the album's track listing and distinct sound led to speculation that the band might release a second album in 2019. "

• I feel like Callum Bains' quote would be fit more appropriately in the Critical Reception section if you were to also re-format in prose, like this:

" Callum Bains of PopMatters concluded "Infest the Rats' Nest is a brutal, fear-inducing harbinger of our impending existential doom as the band steps on the soapbox to paint the apocalyptic horror of the climate emergency".

• "During a 30 April question-and-answer.." --> "During a question-and-answer on 30 April..."

• Consider adding another chronology template in the infobox. Here is the code you can just copy in the infobox's Misc section:

{{Extra chronology | artist = [[King Gizzard & the Lizard Wizard]] studio album | type = studio | prev_title = [[Fishing for Fishies]] | prev_year = 2019 | title = Infest the Rats' Nest | year = 2019 | next_title = [[K.G. (album)|K.G.]] | next_year = 2020 }}

Update 23 Jan: Pass!

Criteria 2: Verifiable with no original research

• it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline

Pass!

• all inline citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counterintuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged

Good work with the citations, all are from reliable sources. Just a few very minor nitpicks with some citations:

• [4] website can be wikilinked Triple J add Australian Broadcasting Corporation as the publisher
• [5] remove ", Popmatters" from article title
• [13] website can be wikilinked Guitar World
• [14] website can be wikilinked Beat Magazine
• [25] website can be wikilinked Consequence (publication)

Update 23 Jan: Pass!

• it contains no original research

Pass, as every claim is backed up by an independent source.

• it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism

Pass!

Continuing with the next criterium in the following days. Marcostev88 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 3: Broad in its coverage

• it addresses the main aspects of the topic and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail

Pass, there is nothing off-topic, everything is relevant.

Criteria 4: Neutral

• it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each

A few ratings from publications cited in the article (Under the Radar and NME) have given the album relatively lower scores. Implement more of their criticism into the 'Critical reception' section. There is only one slightly negative line from Pitchfork, and this could definitely be more balanced. Here are some pointers:

From the NME review:

• "as the album reaches its mid-section, the material does start to wear thin"
• "there are only nine tracks here, and not all of them are particularly memorable"
• "it sounds like the trio are running out of ideas"

From the Under the Radar review:

• "Infest the Rats’ Nest can sometimes feel like a band playing at the harder edges of its sound just because"

Side note: the album has had a few appearances in some notable publications' year-end lists, which you can view here. Consider adding a "List of positions on year-end lists" table under the 'Accolades' subheading. You can find examples of this table on these articles under 'Critical Reception': Flood and Angel in Realtime. Adding this will further emphasise the album's notability which is always a good thing.

Update 23 Jan: Pass!

Criteria 5: Stable

• it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Pass

Continuing with the final parts of the review in the following days. When I finish I'll let you know and I'll give you a week to make the changes before making a final decision :) Marcostev88 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Criteria 6: Illustrated

• media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

Pass - the album cover has a rationale, and both images have a valid copyright status.

• media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions

Pass!

Final thoughts

Good work on the article and for implementing a number of the changes I've suggested through the review process! There are still a few things to work on - I'm going to add a few more recommendations above and mark the few changes that haven't been implemented in bold. I will return in 4 days (23 Jan) to make the final decision, in the meantime good luck continuing making the article as best as it can be!

Result

Congratulations Arcahaeoindris, this article has passed the Good Article review! Good work on implementing all the suggestions throughout the review process – all items that may not have originally satisfied the criteria has been amended and in my view, the article now clearly passes as a Good Article. I am now taking the steps outlined at WP:GAN/I#PASS. Thanks for your co-operation and for your dedication to this article! Marcostev88 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.