Talk:Cryptooology

Cryptooology 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. Review: February 12, 2022. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Alternative music Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Cryptooology appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 23 January 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that according to one critic, the math rock album Cryptooology by Yowie "sounds like an explosion in a Slinky factory"? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Did you know archive/2022/January. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cryptooology.

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

Reviewer: Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) 08:40, 25 January 2022 (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

Picking this up. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Overall thoughts: this is a well-written article; I like the prose and appreciate the background information on the band. A few comments below.

• Some neutrality issues with these superlatives in wikivoice: meticulous rehearsal and are in fact painstakingly precise in the lead; meticulously composing in Recording and release. I'd attribute them as opinions (perhaps something as simple as "have been described as" instead of "are in fact", assuming a source uses "painstakingly") and/or use a more neutral descriptor.

Removed or reworded some of the unecessary superlatives

• The lead seems a bit short; can it be expanded a little?

Expanded on the lead a little. According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article with fewer than 15,000 characters prose should have one to two paragraphs in the lead, and Cryptooology has just under 8,000

• Composition: is there a reason "clean" is in quotes? (I'm not really familiar with "clean" amplification; just wanted to check if it's a technical term or a quote from the source.)

I was wondering the same thing. Typically when I see the word clean in reference to music, I think "no distortion" (which in this case is true). However, I can't 100% confirm if that's what the critic is talking about in the reference, so I just got rid of "clean" altogether (the sentence still works).

• Carl W. Stalling—who is best known for scoring cartoons like Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies – I think this needs a source.

Added a source

• I'd try to paraphrase a couple of the longer quotes in Reception; the one from Levinson seems a bit long.

Cut down on some of the quotes

Please ping when done/if you have any questions. Thanks, Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Blz 2049: Pinging since it's been almost a week. I think the article is close to being a GA; just needs a few fixes. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olivaw-Daneel: I can take a look at this. Give me a day or so. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Olivaw-Daneel: Alright, took a little longer than I was hoping for, but I'll blame life for getting in the way. I've addressed each comment. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Famous Hobo: Great, thanks for stepping in. Happy to promote. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply