Jump to content

Talk:Vespertine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateVespertine is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleVespertine has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 8, 2016Good article nomineeListed
June 16, 2021Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 28, 2021Peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

Untitled

[edit]

FYI, I moved the content from the single articles and created redirects to here. The songs did not warrant their own articles according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs, and the added content makes Vespertine a better article, IMO. --Fang Aili 20:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I un-censored the still taken from the "Pagan Poetry" video. Among the many things that Wikipedia is not, it is not censored for the protection of the overly sensitive. Anville 10:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This wiki is in error, and should be marked for spam. I had linked to this page in 2006 as a biological term, and now there is no record of the proper term easily found. This history seems to have been altered as well, since none of the links match the original content, which was correct in 2006.

Samples / Statements

[edit]

The "Samples" section is empty: why? Is something suppose to be in there or should i just be deleted?

Also, the "Statements by Björk about this album" should be fixed. Maybe put into the introduction, or perhaps joined with "Reception" or some other section. Otherwise, it's just a collection of quotes.

James Who (talk) 12:50, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth album

[edit]

This is Bjork's fifth studio album. She created an album in the late 70s in Iceland under this name. Please don't change it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:03, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not under this artist name. And, officially this album is referenced as 4th: http://web.archive.org/web/20011216090134/http://bjork.com/specials/vespertine/ Counting her juvenilia release between her solo work is a forced opinion. Wikipedia should reflect what official and majority of the sources say and not to try to "invent" things. Shimenawa (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC). Update: please see the Post album talk page. Shimenawa (talk)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vespertine. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

GA Review

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Vespertine/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Prism (talk · contribs) 22:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Bleff, I will be conducting this review shortly. Good night, Pedro u | t 22:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great!--Bleff (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bleff, I apologize for the delay, but I will start the review Friday. Pedro u | t 14:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Until then, --Bleff (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Background and development

[edit]
  • Cannes Film Festival shouldn't be italicized.
Fixed
  • The poem is titled "Techno Prayer", as per the book you cited.
Fixed
  • Ref. 3 is dead.
Fixed
  • ", and "everything on 11..f. a lot of steroids in the air": this seems unnecessary and not too interesting or adequate
Fixed
  • acted → starred
Fixed
  • " the film was awarded the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival; she received the Best Actress award." the section is heavy on this half-comma-using structure, perhaps exchange it for an 'and'
Fixed
Fixed
  • I'm not sure you can use Bjork.fr as a reference. I know it's reliable but a fansite is not a high-quality source. You should cite NME directly through Template:Cite journal. This problem extends to other refs.
Fixed
  • I've just read the Sound on Sound ref and it has quite a lot of information, you have an excellent source in your hands (it always was...)
It is indeed! I wish I had found it before I nominated the article. I'll incorporate more of it.
  • "While living in Copenhagen she" → "While living in Copenhagen, she"
Fixed
  • I have never seen "aka" in an article, perhaps extend it to also known as
Fixed
  • "was bored with big beats" → grew tired of "big beats"
Fixed
  • Can't locate the content ref 15 is supporting.
In the site, "new york experience" links to a mini-site titled "New York Domestika Session", which is dead. Should I remove this content?
Oh, I found the part that supports that part. You can keep it. Just out of curiosity, though, I can't open that mini-site, it tells me the plugin isn't working.
  • The second quote could be paraphrased into something smaller and contained in the previous paragraph.
Fixed
  • "notes that:" → "notes that,"
Fixed

Composition

[edit]
  • "writes:" → "writes," (This extends to other sections, as a quote should be preceded by a comma)
Fixed
  • Amazon.com isn't a reliable, high-quality source.
Fixed
  • "David Fricke of Rolling Stone wrote: "Vespertine is the closest any pop-vocal album has come to the luxuriant Zen of the new minimalist techno". Sentences like this could be, I think, paraphrased because the section already has a lot of quotes. Try doing it for a few.
  • "the heart of the album" how so?
Fixed
  • "In Homogenic Björk usually used one loud beat, but in Vespertine she wanted to make a "microcosmos of thirty or forty beats interacting" This makes it seem like Homogenic is based on one loud beat. Rephrase this.
What about: "In Homogenic, every track was built around a loud beat, but in Vespertine Björk wanted to make a "microcosmos of thirty or forty beats interacting."?
  • I don't think live4now is a reliable source.
Fixed
  • "Björk has said the song: "is about how two people can create a paradise just by uniting. You've got an emotional location that's mutual. And it's unbreakable. And obviously it's make-believe. So, you could argue that it doesn't exist because it's invisible, but of course it does"." I think this isn't good. For a section on the composition, it's lacking a more analytical characterization of the music. The lyrics are important but the music itself is described in a quite vague manner.
Fixed
  • Some of the smaller paragraphs can be combined with the larger ones, in order.
Fixed

Imagery

[edit]
  • YouTube can't be used as a source.
I'm having a hard time finding a transcript or an official upload of this press conference. Can I cite it without a link with, for example, Template:Cite conference?
I will have to ask that to another editor.
Ok. To get rid of the YouTube source, I wrote: "Björk (28 November 2001). Press Conference: Word Shiseido Hall. Tokyo, Japan."
  • Sony Mini DV camera is too specific and comes across as publicity, especially since it's repeated.
Fixed
  • "Although now recognised as one of Björk's finest videos" you can't only say this because one critic did so.
Replaced it with: "Although the music video has been well received by critics", and added another source.
  • I don't think Diffuser.fm is a great source
It is a Townsquare Media site, like Loudwire. I found this other source: Confront Magazine, though it might be even worse.
The reason I'm being extra picky with the sources is because I think this has FA potential. I found an NME article!
Great!
  • Pagan Poetry music video" → "Pagan Poetry" music video
Fixed
  • A lot of Björk refs / primary sources. If you could switch some, it would be great, especially in case you want to eventually make it an FAC.
I switched various Björk refs
Switch ShowSTUDIO with [New York magazine http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/04/nick-knight-on-working-with-kanye-and-bjork.html]
Cool, thanks for the help.
  • The Nicola Dibben quote is just placed there without any introduction.
As an introduction, I wrote: "Academic Nicola Dibben has likened Vespertine's artwork and promotion to representations of the Greek myth of Leda and the Swan, emphazising the erotic overtones of both. She stated:".

Release and promotion

[edit]
I replaced various 'bjork.com' refs
  • 77island isn't a high-quality source
It has been Björk's official discography website for years, isn't it reliable?
  • There should be a separate section for commercial/chart performance, that information shouldn't be here.
Fixed
  • "Cocoon" was released as the album's third single on 11 March 2002, its music video having premiered in February" practically the same structure as that of the Hidden Place sentence, try altering it.
Fixed
  • You could mention how each single performed on the charts, like on other album articles.
Fixed

Critical reception

[edit]
  • This section seems rather small for the amount of reviews there are. It can be expanded.
Fixed, although I'm afraid there could be some errors in prose.
  • Is Almost Cool noteworthy?
I got that source from Metacritic, thinking the section needed a more mixed review.
  • In critic's lists (which I think should be critics' lists) what does the 44.5 position mean?
Fixed
  • I don't think Fast 'n' Bulbous, E! Online, Audiogalaxy, Playlouder, No Ripcord should be listed.
Fixed

Charts and certifications

[edit]
  • I have never seen a chart table for singles in an album article. I'm going to let it pass, though.
I actually saw it in the article for Debut

References

[edit]
  • AllMedia is missing publisher
I cannot find AllMedia in the article
  • The Orlando Weekly ref should be in cite news
Fixed

Lead

[edit]
  • remove "winter"
Fixed
  • E. E. Cummings is correct here, so E.E. Cummings is incorrect in the body of the article
Fixed
  • The idea that she meant to deviate from the sonority of Homogenic could be incorporated into the second paragraph
Fixed
  • " and music boxes, the latter were custom made; strings are also heavily featured" I suggest "(...), strings and custom music boxes."
Fixed
  • "On the album Björk added "microbeats", with the help of the duo Matmos, made from the sampling of shuffling cards, ice being cracked, among other household sounds." → "Assisted by the duo Matmos, Björk created "microbeats" from various household sounds, such as that of shuffling cards and ice being cracked."
Fixed

Overall, this is on the verge of becoming a good article. I absolutely adore this album and think that it deserves an article of the same quality, but some of the prose and the reliance on primary sources are ultimately detrimental. As usual, one week (eligible for extension) on hold; when these issues are fixed, I will do a second review of it. Great work here, Bleff. Pedro u | t 13:03, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bleff, today is the deadline; however, two more days to do what's missing in case you've forgotten. Pedro u | t 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Prism, I've been having problems with my internet connection, which was fixed today. I'll try to do what's missing. --Bleff (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, Bleff. Let me know when you're done. Good work, pedro home | talk 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Prism. As of right now, does the amount of primary sources prevent this article of becoming GA? Thank you for the patience. --Bleff (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bleff, sorry for the delay. I believe not. I think that for now it is good enough for GA status, and I strongly advise you to keep working on it, as it has FA potential. One thing that you should consider is removing the critics' lists table and somehow incorporate it into a Legacy section, I'm sure there's material for that. Just a few remarks before this becomes a GA:
  • Top40Charts.com is not reliable.
Fixed
  • The first sentence of the Imagery section is very long.
Fixed
  • FN118 looks awkward
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.
  • The month Vespertine was released, Björk's previous albums Debut and Post were certified Platinum, while Homogenic and Volumen were certified Gold in the United States: not sure if this is relevant.

pedro home | talk 13:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed
I'm really happy this becomes GA. Thank you! --Bleff (talk) 17:23, 8 May 2016 (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.

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Vespertine/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.

Article requirements:
  • Green tickY All the C class criteria
  • Green tickY A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
  • Green tickY A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
  • Red XN No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
The article is alright but lacks sourcing in some areas. So by new ratings, it's a c-article rather then a B. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 00:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 09:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on Vespertine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vespertine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critic lists

[edit]

The tables listing critic lists should be trimmed per a community consensus. A recommended number was 10 publications. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vespertine&oldid=1211552537"