Talk:Horses (album)/GA2

GA Review

Passed. LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator: Holiday56 (talk · contribs) 17:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 15:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Spotcheck

Note for third persons: Most of the necessary changes were introduced according to Talk:Horses (album)/GA1.

I think the article already was in pretty great shape before my intrusion, and now don't have anything to add!
Just to add extra work :). Should we remove "Ten albums the critics love which are crap" review. This article doesn't have enough negative reviews (this is the only mixed/negative review), and nevertheless the dubious source of the review, I think its presence enhances the wall of positive reviews. HOWEVER, WP:RSP doesn't like Youtube and even suspicious of the reviews posted by Anthony Fantano, which (for me) are often more persuasive than journalistic reviews. My ultimate thoughts: we should remove "Ten albums the critics love which are crap", but give an honest try at finding at least one negative/mixed review. Probably impossible :). I didn't find any (from respected sources)! - LastJabberwocky (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- NPR review has a nice caveat conclusion: "my reaction to this album is a little complex. Its subject matter is painful to listen to, but the spirit of its exposition is inspiring. Horses is equally hard to return to because it feels so full of pain, but is so brilliant that it's hard to stay away from. I feel a little deeper having lived with it for a month, though, and I know it's a great work, even despite its weaknesses (I feel guilty at how much the karaoke instrumental of "Kimberly" reminded me of Wesley Willis). I still feel the chill of Patti Smith's suspicious gaze when I look at the cover of Horses, but now I feel like I can explain it a little better." — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastJabberwocky (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No further comments! - LastJabberwocky (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.