Talk:Perverts (album)

Classification

Upon its announcement, all publications described Perverts as her second studio album, including Rolling Stone, NME, and Stereogum. Today, after the release of "Punish", Exclaim! stated that Cain clarified it is not an album, and sources are calling it either an album (The Line of Best Fit) or a "project" (Clash and Dork). What classification should be used in the article for now with the information we have? CatchMe (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be considered an album. It is nine songs and NINETY minutes, longer than Cain's debut album. Pxlpixx (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, and given that the majority of the sources classify it as an album, I think we should follow that for now. Plus, today Cain said "album artwork". CatchMe (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

i agree. i also don't see any source of the artist herself referring to it as an ep. Sammyrayy (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Then you obviously ignored my edit description which specifically gave proof of her referring to it as an EP, so I'll paste it here instead.

"She has referred to Perverts as an EP multiple times. Notably in her Instagram and Tumblr comments under the linked posts (I linked screenshots of these replies below). It's clear why some sources would see a 90-minute project and immediately refer to it as an album, but it's important to listen to what the artist has to say. There have been EPs in the past with long runtimes, e.g. "How To Leave Town" by Car Seat Headrest. I would appreciate it if you would allow me to edit the page, or if you could do it yourself, thanks!

Instagram and Tumblr replies:

[1]https://ibb.co/MR47yMr

[2]https://ibb.co/vZnLGzM"

Furthermore, here is a Reddit link to photos of her interview with HommeGirls, where she again calls it an EP. Case closed, I'm reverting it now, thanks. Scvlla (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYSOURCES are not reliable sources and that WP:REDDIT link is doing an WP:ELNO violation. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 01:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Notability

Please see WP:NALBUM and WP:UNRELEASED. This article is premature. Moving to draftspace, where it can be incubated (and after the recording's release, we'll also know definitively whether it's an album or an EP, and needn't edit war over it). Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This clearly meets these criterias and WP:FUTUREALBUM, with several reliable sources. I added it to RM/TR. Regarding the EP or album dispute, almost every source calls it an album, even Cain in a recent post on social media revealing its cover. So it should be placed at "(album)". CatchMe (talk) 14:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

It does not "clearly" meet those criteria. It might meet #1 of WP:NALBUM - when actually released. Of the 18 references currently in the article, the first five aren't about the unreleased album at all. Reference six is a fairly in-depth interview that mentions the new album in passing. Reference seven, not about the album. Reference eight is WP:SIGCOV, reference nine, definitely not. Etc. Reminder, WP:SIGCOV for WP:NALBUM actually says "This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries except for the following: Any reprints of press releases, other publications where the musician or ensemble talks about the recording, and all advertising that mentions the recording, including manufacturers' advertising." What is here is almost exclusively not "significant, independent coverage from reliable sources." Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The first references do not directly mention the album because they are about its background information, precedents, and how she teased the album, which is the standard for album articles, as you can see even in GAs or FAs. There is no statement that an album article should be created after its release. The sources used in the article (which obviously are not the only ones), share the information we have now, which I think is enough to warrant its article. With the following days, more data will appear on sources, like it happened with the release of the lead single. CatchMe (talk) 12:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The first references, obviously, then, do not satisfy WP:SIGCOV for this album, as they don't mention it. "There is no statement that an album article should be created after its release." There are points two to seven of WP:NALBUM, all of which require the album to have been released and to have charted, or won an award, etc. The first references, obviously, then, do Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

It says that it should meet "at least one of these criteria", and it does. This is also an album by a high-profile artist; their "upcoming works may be notable months in advance, and the date at which an article for that album becomes viable is not directly related to its eventual release date". CatchMe (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, how is Cain a "high-profile artist"? She has released one album, and while it seems to have been received well by critics, I can't see that it charted at all. An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. and The recording has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. - I have gone through several of the references already, and they clearly don't meet the non-trivial requirement. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:42, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The artist gained a cult following online and significant coverage and acclaim, so I do not think charting is that important here, and that is not synonymous with notability, just one of its aspects. Also, I don't see how the references "clearly don't meet the non-trivial requirement" when the album is their main and only subject, and not just a insignificant mention. CatchMe (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Charting is what we have in the guidelines, though, not an ephemeral/unquantifiable and subjective "cult following". The references clearly don't meet the non-trivial requirement because they're basically a few sentences long, in total? And mostly a regurgitation of her Instagram posts. In other words, trivial, not significant. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:37, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

For future albums, the only possible criteria in WP:NALBUM is number 1, so charting is impossible here. "Ephemeral/unquantifiable and subjective" is, redundantly, subjective, and not based on the reliable sources that claim that or call the artist a "cult star" or else. This is a highly anticipated follow-up to a critically acclaimed album (again, based on several sources, not my opinion), which is why I say she is "high-profile". CatchMe (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Did her debut album actually chart? I coudn't find anything to confirm it did. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:58, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

No, and I never said it did. CatchMe (talk) 16:28, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Classification post-release

These are some reliable sources that classified Perverts upon its release:

• Uproxx: "And then there's Perverts, a new release out today (January 8) classified as an EP even though it’s 15 minutes longer than Preacher's Daughter" and "It feels less like a proper album (or EP) than an act of public insouciance".
• Vulture: "her new project, Perverts" and "Cain herself isn’t even calling the new project an album".
• Paste: "Cain's new LP, Perverts", "And no matter what your conclusions about the album are", and "Perverts is an album that..."
• Alternative Press: "she’s back with a 90-minute project"
• Kerrang!: "the new project from Ethel Cain".
• Dork: "Ethel Cain has dropped her new 90-minute project" and "The 90-minute collection".
• DIY: "That 'Perverts' purposefully presents itself as a project rather than an album..."
• Exclaim!: "in an era where most artists make albums a third of its length, the EP feels like a daunting endurance test".
• Clash: "'Perverts' is not an easy album to listen to".
• Stereogum: "It’s worth noting that none of the press materials for Perverts actually call it an album. My promo copy refers to it, variously, as a "project," a "body of work," and even an "EP," which would likely make it the longest EP of all time."

As seen, they don't agree in the classification, even the "press materials" from it. If no one objects, I will put a note after "studio recording" similar to the Guitar Songs or Infections of a Different Kind (Step 1) notes. It would read: "Press releases do not describe Perverts as a studio album, but rather a "project", "body of work", or extended play (EP). While streaming services and some reliable sources call it an album or LP record, preponderance of publications give it a neutral classification. This article uses "studio recording" and "recording" for consistency." CatchMe (talk · contribs) 20:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree with your points here; since little sources here call it an album, should the page name be changed to "Perverts (recording)"? Locust member (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure. "Recording" is not under WP:ALBUMDAB. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 23:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Leave as is. It's a music release that's nearly 90 minutes long. That's an album, albeit a long one. You can call your horse a chair if you want, because it's something with four legs that you can sit on, but everyone else is going to call it a horse. If it's some conceit of the artist to not call it an album, that's all fine and dandy, we don't have to pander to it, same as we still have articles title "Acme Corporation" even though the first sentence might say "(stylized in all-caps)" or "(stylized all lowercase)". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Perverts (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: CatchMe (talk · contribs) 14:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Locust member (talk · contribs) 14:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Snagging this review for later. I reviewed the lead single so why not review the project, right? Locust member (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you!! CatchMe (talk · contribs) 16:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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

• Would add her early admiration for slowcore and ambient music to the lead.

• The project has a lo-fi, slow, and experimental production - remove the a

• Perverts contains guitars and more spoken-word vocals as it progresses. - the word "more" here feels a bit out of place. It's not like the spoken-word vocals were mentioned before.

• a Aldous Harding song - an instead of a

• Slant Magazine's Eric Mason believed that Cain "channels" the singer-songwriter Nicole Dollanganger on "Vacillator" - "Vacillator" can just be made "the song" or "the track" since the sentence before is already talking about "Vacillator"

• Cain explores imagery inspired on Inferno - "inspired from"?

• You could mention the 15-minute runtime of "Pulldrone", especially since it is the album's longest track. Clash confirms the runtime while ScreenRant confirms its the longest track.

• Unlink acoustic guitar since I believe it falls under common instruments

• On November 11, 2024, Cain revealed the track listing for Perverts. - source also says the artwork was revealed on the same day. would add that in.

• Additionally, Tiple - typo, should be Tipple

• Really, really nice job on the critical reception part.

Factually accurate and verifiable

• copyvio violation unlikely at 21.3%, nice job!

• the album was included in several year-end lists of the best music - not addressed in the following Stereogum source, only its cult following.

• All sources are reliable per WP:A/S or WP:ABOUTSELF. Iowa Public Radio is an affiliate of NPR, valid per WP:A/S Y

• Refs [10] and [41] (both Vulture) need limited access level.

• Ref [29] can be removed following "La Monte Young." per WP:REPCITE

• Ref [24] Clash, needs date (January 7, 2025)

• named after the Kier-La Janisse book titled - the book's title is not actually addressed in the source, just that it is based off of a book by the author. However, I found this ScreenRant article that includes the full name, which should be added to avoid OR. ScreenRant is reliable for entertainment.

• as well as the film The Reflecting Skin (1990). - since the following ref is accompanied by another one, add a reference to the end of this sentence.

• Lead says "her record label Daughters of Cain" while Release and promotion says "the record label", change to "her" in the latter since it is her own label.

Spot-check:

• [6] a bit iffy, comment above.
• [12] Y
• [14] Y
• [23] Y
• [25] Y

Broad in its coverage

• Includes all the standard stuff for album articles and does not veer off topic.

Neutral point of view

• Y

Stable

• Although generally stable, I do have an issue with the user Sock reverting the use of Tidal as a source. Per WP:PERSONNEL, it says, "Per WP:AFFILIATE, inline citations to e-commerce or streaming platforms to verify personnel credits are allowed.", so I am not sure what is this user's deal. Though, Tidal does not verify the performer credits so another source will need to be used. I do see in a ton of featured articles that sources for personnel are actually not provided, so I don't think we will necessarily need one here.

Apple Music does verify all credits so that could be used instead. And yeah, I don't see a problem with a citation since there weren't "long" discussions or reached consensus for this as far as I know. CatchMe (talk · contribs) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Me neither. I won't be nitpicky about it, since FAs don't include it I'm fine with leaving it out as much as I would like it in to verify the info. Locust member (talk) 03:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Illustrated

• Album cover has fair use rationale.

Overall

• Will get to my finishing comments tomorrow. So far, this looks really good, @CatchMe:!
  • @CatchMe: my review is done, really nice work! Lemme know once you got everything done/addressed and this looks good to go. Article will be needing some updating in June and December since this will more than likely get placed on mid-year and year-end lists, but it is in good shape for right now.