Talk:Dubstep/Archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

GA status

i think this article is slowly getting there. well cited, pretty well phrased, coherent. slaps on the back to the recent contributors all round :) --Kaini 04:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The only sections needing citations are the "2003-2005" section, and the first half of the 2006-present bit. A few more images wouldn't go amiss either, but strangely I was planning to take one or two while I was out today... it definitely meets the other 4 criteria with flying colours though as far as I can see, it's NPOV, no edit wars, broad in its coverage and very well written. Good work to everyone on this, I'm really hoping it gets promoted!
BTW Kaini, one of your references you added to the Characteristics section is missing a caption. It's number 8 on the references list, seems you just added a shortcut to name="wire 286" which hadn't been defined in the rest of the article. Just thought I'd point that out. - Zeibura (Talk) 10:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm certainly not fishing for compliments, but I did a lot of work on this article a while back to re-nose the intro and add some verifiable newspaper sources as refs to the top. It still, in my opinion needs a little more attention. The external links need to be culled of irrelevant and promotional sites, and I reckon there are too many red-links for this to achieve GA status. I don't have a massive knowledge of this area so I haven't added much recently but I will add more refs as and when I can find them. Escaper2007 11:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's any spam in the links but I guess it's questionable whether the Boomkat/Plan B/SF Weekly articles need to be there. I don't know.--P4k 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why they shouldn't be to be honest, they're a good source of information for people researching the topic, which is the point of external links. - Arubiez (Zeibura's sockpuppet) (Talk) 17:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Well it's not my view but Wikipedia policy: [1] Take the first link in the list: Dubstep forum. Forums should not be linked to, according to the above. But why would you need a link to Dubstep forum? You could just Google that and get the same result. Escaper2007 17:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I never knew that linking to forums is against policy. In this case, I think it would really be a shame to have to delete it; dubstepforum is far and away the biggest/most active dubstep-related board on the internet and people have talked about its existence as one of the factors contributing to dubstep's increased popularity (eg here). If you look through the various forums right now you can see threads started by Plastician, Pinch, Mala, Mary Anne Hobbs, Ramadanman, etc.; I know I've seen N-Type post there in the past. It's especially appropriate to link to it given what an internet-based scene dubstep is. It's true that anyone can find it through google; I guess the point of having it is just to suggest to the reader that it's an interesting site they might want to visit.--P4k 20:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I think an WP:IAR evocation is appropriate here. The drum and bass article links to Dogs on Acid and D&B arena for the same reason this should link to dubstepforum; they're good sources of information. Even though they are people's opinions, you search for anything and you'll find it on there. Also, a fair few of the people who post on these forums are professional producers/DJs - I seem to remember one of the references mentions dubstepforum for that reason. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
(another note) I might also point out that WP:EL, as well as the rest of the manual of style, is just a guideline, not a policy, and the title of that section is "links normally to be avoided", not "links which must be avoided" or anything absolute. So it's not so much that links to forums are absolutely against Wikipedia policy and can be deleted on sight, it is a matter open for discussion. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah!

This article is no longer lurking in Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Are there any more statements that really need references? - Zeibura (Talk) 03:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

See my last edit. :(--P4k 04:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, not sure I get you? Would removing the word "reggae" simply solve the problem? - Zeibura (Talk) 04:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I wrote that before you changed the sentence, or before I noticed it. The main problem with that ref is that it mentions Hatcha only in passing. Not to be a dick (I know you've done a lot of work on this article) but there is still a lot of stuff that needs to be referenced; the paragraph toward the end about "dub reggae sonic aesthetics" might be the most worrying.--P4k 04:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm questioning whether that's at all verifiable... perhaps it should be removed. I found a couple of quite recent articles about Juju's dub reggae inspired sound ([2], [3]) but nothing about anyone taking on the "sonic aesthetics" of dub reggae to distance the genre from drum & bass, house, breaks etc.
It's also unclear how the "senses of differing momentum" point given in that paragraph links to dub reggae.. and the last sentence was clear personal analysis so I've removed it. - Zeibura (Talk) 05:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
It probably should be removed, yeah.--P4k 05:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Skream - Rottan

Is that the tune with the flute playing a broken chord at the start? If so I think I have it, could put another sample in the article to illustrate that point made in Characteristics. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what a broken chord is, but "Rutten" on his album has a flute at the beginning.--P4k 23:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
that's the one, it's a really basic track, from skreamizm vol.1; there's a jazzy flute melody, a filtered 'wubwubwub' sub, a kick, a snare, and sparse hihat. oh and a whip sample. an almost archetypal dubstep track, imo. a 30sec clip of the key change in the hook of midnight request line could be another goodun, actually.---Kaini 00:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
The Midnight Request Line sample we already have is of that exact moment, at least I think that's the bit you mean :) - Zeibura (Talk) 01:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
excellent stuff, that's the exact bit of rottan i would have picked to illustrate the slow/fast nature of the genre. --Kaini 02:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

song structure

i'm having a damn hard time getting cites for the structure para i wrote; it is fact but WP:NOR and all that. all i got is production forum threads for now. blackdownsoundboy doesn't turn up much either :( --Kaini 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think referencing every statement in that section is that much of a big deal - the samples offer some kind of reference, especially when the names of the tracks are linked to reliable sources, e.g. the skream tracks, they're mentioned all over the place in the references. Having a look at the GA reviewed version of drum and bass, that had paragraphs of detailed info about musicology with no citations. (section of the reviewed version of the article) - Zeibura (Talk) 01:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
expanded a bit. new redlink :o --Kaini 02:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

redlinks

additionally, being realistic regarding unwikifying some redlinks has been on my mind. FA articles don't generally have many redlinks, and we have a whole bunch especially in the earlier history sections. perhaps unwikify zed bias, horsepower, et al for now? --00:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I've just started work on these yesterday and today. I've created stubs for El-B and Benga (artist), and have listed the rest in my userspace here, so go ahead and turn them blue if you can! - Zeibura (Talk) 01:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
excellent! i've been sorta itchin to do a horsepower productions article or a loefah one... --Kaini 01:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
right, next up a loefah article, i think. btw i've been collecting a bunch of refs in my userspace if you guys wanna use em - here --Kaini 23:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Christ you guys are really on a roll here.--P4k 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
ha, my weekend has consisted of playin chess, workin on wiki articles, and smoking way too much weed. rock and roll. --Kaini 23:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I started a Joe Nice article in userspace here, I don't know if he's actually worth an article or not. I think I've basically found all the sources available online (and half of them are by Martin Clark).--P4k 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly he's worth an article, what you've written verifiably passes WP:MUSIC criteria 1 and 7 with flying colours. Also that interview could be used to reference some statements, especially ones starting with "Nice has expressed that..." or "Nice has said..." etc. - Zeibura (Talk) 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's up.--P4k 20:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

layout

those two sample boxes justified left and right look hella clunky :( the little column of text in between is waaaay to skinny! my layout expertise extends to inserting line breaks, however. --Kaini 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Soz, that didn't occur to me, I always forget my screen resolution is wider than most people's! I've tried aligning them both to the left as you did but using the {{clear}} template, how does that look to you? - Zeibura (Talk) 02:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
it really is tweaking minutae, but the text in a chunk at the right, with the samples on the left like now? audio samples are kinda important, it's hard to get across the sound with just text. --Kaini 03:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
yeah that looks much better, nice one :) - Zeibura (Talk) 03:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Kode9 on double time beats

Does anyone have a copy of issue 269 of Wire with Kode9's invisible jukebox? I managed to find this which says "As Kode9 observes in the fascinating Invisible Jukebox in this month's Wire, if you were subject to intense exposure to jungle in the 90s, there is no need for the double-time beats to be actually present any more; you provide them yourself." I was going to put that in as a quote, but it's not clear whether those were his exact words or not. Either way, it looks horrid as prose, so the exact quote would definitely be better! - Zeibura (Talk) 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

i do, i'll dig it out later. i think his quote used the phrase 'we've internalised the double-time' or something along those lines. --Kaini 17:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Grime compilations

"the two misnamed 'Grime' compilations put together by Rephlex in 2004 (assisted by Ammunition)" (mentioned in the 03-05 section with a {{fact}} tag) - any idea what these are called? - Zeibura (Talk) 02:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

They're actually called "Grime" and "Grime 2"--hence "misnamed."--P4k 02:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
they are simply called Grime and Grime 2. i've never heard the second one; the first is rather pedestrian, rigid stuff imo. nice cover though. --Kaini 02:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool. Found a couple of articles on cyclic defrost, but nothing to verify the "it introduced the different flavours to the global electronic music audience." statement on the end... what's that meant to say exactly, that the fact they were misnamed brought dubstep to the attention of the grime audience? - Zeibura (Talk) 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements

We're down to five {{fact}} templates, all in the 03-05 section. I think I've sorted the one at the end of the first para that P4k and I were discussing above with a bit of a rewording, but if anyone disagrees feel free to change it back and discuss.

As for the other 5, I've searched high and low and cannot seem to find anything to support them. The two in the penultimate paragraph (about "the forward>> sound" and grime DJs playing there in 2005) seem perfectly believable, but can't seem to find anything to reference them on the internet. Annoying seeing as the latter could easily be salvaged by finding an old lineup of those events; seeing as we've established Forward>>'s existance and importance, we could get away with a primary source here, but their website has practically nothing on it.. perhaps these are mentioned in IRL materials, which I don't have much of.

The one about the Rephlex grime compilations bringing new flavours to the scene might be a little too vague; the only articles I found about those compilations gave no hint as to how they could be considered a turning point or why they were anything special. Unfortunately removing the end statement would make that paragraph a bit useless.

As for the last paragraph, I've been teetering on removing that entirely, the first statement about the garage scene "turning its back on the sound" seems particularly worrying... but I'll leave that decision to other. I should probably confess I've only been into dubstep for about a year, so a lot of this history stuff is a learning experience for me as well. - Zeibura (Talk) 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ironically the stuff in the last paragraph (and probably more of it) was added by User:Martinclark.--P4k 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I cannot believe I didn't spot that! He practically de-stubbed it as well... - Zeibura (Talk) 23:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
delicious throws up some nice lists of potential reference material; i'm having a dig through it now... --Kaini 00:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was thinking about emailing Clark to ask if he could suggest any references, but I probably won't do it. As far as Rephlex goes, the sentence isn't saying those comps introduced new flavors to the scene, it's saying that that they introduced the music to an international audience. This article (which we already cite) says that the Grime comps "helped spread the dub-step philosophy" but had little impact, while this Martin Clark column says that "Grime 2" contributed to DMZ's success and had international distribution (maybe the first Dubstep release that was true of?); that's all I can find. I guess the first article would allow us to say that the comps "raised awareness of Dubstep to some extent" or something similarly weak. If you look on Google you can see people on blogs and message boards talking about a "Forward>> sound" but that's not useful to us (and in any case they seem kind of skeptical about it). I can't find anything about Grime at FWD>>, and this article describes a Summer 2005 FWD>> night that seems like 2/3 Dubstep. So yeah, I don't know what to do with this stuff. At the risk of stating the obvious, everything in the article should be referenced eventually, not just the stuff with fact tags.--P4k 00:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Well those statements marked with fact tags were all tagged by me I think; after you alerted me that there were a lot of unreferenced statements in the article I did a scan to mark them all to make the situation clearer. The fact is, this article is now pretty well referenced, so there isn't really that much left. Some statements are more important than others; for instance a lot of the stuff in the characteristics section we can get away with because of the samples and the many artists we've referenced as being part of the genre. Also some parts like the opening sentences of the 2006 bit are spoken for by the rest of the section, as that reads like "make a few statements, then give your reasoning" prose. I know this is advised against in some cases (let the facts speak for themselves, says WP:NPOV) but this seems pretty harmless and just makes the article read better, which is crucial for an FA. I've done another scan and tagged a few more, which all seem perfectly salvageable, so I'll start having a look now..
Half these needed references really are pure irony though. If Clark had written that stuff on Pitchfork, we could cite it as a reliable source. But as soon as he writes it here, it's original research. Guess this is just one of Wikipedia's unsalvageable flaws.. - Zeibura (Talk) 03:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll admit that looking at the article now there's a lot less unreferenced content than I thought there was, although some of the stuff that remains (eg Forward>>'s importance and original residents) could be really challenging or impossible to cite. I read the characteristics section for the first time just now; I can't really contribute anything there so if you think it's OK I'll take your word for it. The fact that Clark wrote much of the article does make trying to cite it kind of uniquely weird and frustrating.--P4k 20:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah that forward>> lineup stuff is going to be annoying... if only they kept all the past lineups on their website, then we'd be sorted. Ah well, I'm sure it can be salvaged. I'm basing what I said about the characteristics section on other genres which have reached GA/FA whose such sections are not so heavily sourced, and I'm guessing that's why. To be honest, I think this could have passed GA a couple weeks ago comparing it to those, but if we're going for FA it's probably safe to have all the history section cited like you say, and perhaps all the redlinks filled. We can do this, it's been a really good collab so far, even if most of it really really shouldn't need referencing... - Zeibura (Talk) 20:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

you guys know about makeref? it is the handiest little tool for cranking out well-formed references. --Kaini 23:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

ah brilliant, just as I was about to come here and point out that ref. 20 has no caption. cheers! - Zeibura (Talk) 23:35, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
there's another couple that need nice-looking cites like that, i'll get to em eventually; all the copypasta of stuff into makeref is a tad tedious :( --Kaini 23:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Something that's missing

Right now the "History" section is basically an account of the artists, club nights, releases, etc. that have gotten the genre to where it is now, but it doesn't really give a sense of how the sound of the music itself has evolved. For instance, it says that Dubstep came out of productions by El-B, Horsepower, etc., but not what those early productions sounded like. Or: my impression is that at some point there was a move away from halfstep toward a less minimal, more accessible sound. If that shift isn't just a figment of my imagination (it might be, I'm ignorant) the article should mention it. I think ideally the article should contain at least a little more stuff like the first paragraph of the "2003-2005" section.--P4k 23:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What you've just said is true, and definitely supported by the refs. We've already got a lot of stuff about the minimal sound, Digital Mystikz and Loefah etc, a few of the refs I've read also seem to say Kode9 is responsible for something like that as well with his sine waves as basslines... perhaps we should add a couple of samples of the earlier productions? that'd probably help - Zeibura (Talk) 11:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
a sample of 'sine (of the dub)' by kode9 & spaceape* would be the nice illustration of just how minimal dubstep can get, actually.
*incidentally, i wouldn't mind a second opinion on the following - i have a hyperdub 10" of sine b/w stalker, both sides credited to kode9 and daddy gee. it is, obviously, kode9 and the spaceape; the same deathbed accapella features on memories of the Future and the Burial album. but that's not verifiable, and it's not mentioned anywhere online. it's really annoying me, moreso for the spaceape article i'll eventually do than this though.
anyway, that's an aside. the key things involved in a casual reader getting a feel for the sound are obviously the characteristics section, and the samples. --Kaini 02:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


Is it worth mentioning...

.. the "nu rave-dubstep" sound which has been coming around recently, which is no doubt something to do with grindie? Artists like Milanese, Math Head, Emalkay... anyone familiar with what I mean? - Zeibura (Talk) 11:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of it unfortunately. I guess my stock response would be that it's probably worth mentioning if it's gotten media attention, and we can't really mention it otherwise.--P4k 20:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
i only know of milanese, and i'd personally place them sorta teetering on the verge of idm and dubstep (which as vex'd have shown, is an interesting place to be). but i sort of know what you're on about nevertheless. i guess if you can find a source, fire away... --Kaini 21:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Hm, yeah I don't seem to be able to find anything. It might be me thinking it's happened when it hasn't yet and I'm just speculating, remembering what happened to electro house and grindie and jumping to conclusions. Milanese does seem to have a presence in the nu-rave/indie scene and I have seen discussions about dubstep turning "ravey", but nothing to support it. The closest thing is Neil Landstrumm's "rave-step" mix, which isn't quite the same. Great article in this month's DJ Mag about that though so might write an article on Landstrumm in a bit, I think its still a redlink.. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I removed the bit about him a little while ago because I have no idea who he is...I guess I assumed that he probably wasn't that well known within Techno, and thus not that useful as an example of the crossover. Feel free to add it back if you think it's a good idea.--P4k 23:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice work and FYI

  • You guys have done some great work on the Dubstep article. Drop me a line or leave a message at WP:EDM if/when you want a fresh set of eyes to copy-edit it. In case you were wondering, the content of the first deleted version of this article was
“ Dubstep is a musical offshoot of Grime. It is essentially instrumental Grime. It is Grime's dub like dub was to reggae. ”

The current version is a little bit better ;-P. Keep up the great work! Wickethewok 17:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

bass drops and rewinds

previously, the article talked very specifically about bass drops without really specifying what they are. i've written a section (still a bit rough at the moment) that hopefully conveys that. i'm having problems describing the sort of 'descending through an octave but bassy as hell' style bass drop used in skream and mystikz tracks though.

i thought rewinds/reloads were worth a mention too because they are so prevalent in a live context. i'll polish the section up a little in a while. --Kaini 22:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks good. this column is mostly about rewinds and yet doesn't really contain anything useful.--P4k 22:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
after a bit of tweaking it will, but y'know the shackleton sample speaks ten thousand words, as is usual for sound samples in music articles :P --Kaini 22:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

lead paragraph

martin 'blackdown' clark has expressed dissatisfaction with the lead of the article over on dubstepforum, and upon examination i tend to agree. it does establish notability straight away, which is good, but it's a little ambiguous; it could easily be misinterpreted as stating dubstep's first ventures overground were in 2004, whereas martin was contributing articles about el-b et al to "the face" back in 2001[4]. --Kaini 02:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm out of my depth. The Independent seems more overground than The Face to me, but what do I know. For the record I don't think Dubstep needs to rely on the Independent to validate its existence or anything like that. I do think the Independent quote is a useful way to give the reader a rough sense of how well-known Dubstep was in 2004 (and it's interesting to me personally), but it could well be misleading, and the statement that that article represented the first time the word "Dubstep" was used in the UK national press seems like pure original research. Also, given that it's the first paragraph it would be better to devote more space to actually talking about the music and its history, rather than that lengthy quote.--P4k 04:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Having read that forum thread I do agree with Clark, The Face is just reliable a source as the independent, even if it is more underground. What it said was a bit misleading as it suggests firstly that dubstep was defined as the genre name in 2004, and secondly that genre names have to be picked up by the national press to be official, which contradicts WP:OFFICIAL somewhat where it states the most common name should be used. We have enough evidence "dubstep" was being used as a name from the start, so we should let the facts speak for themselves.
I also agree with P4k that the lead section should probably be a bit more informative, I'll give it some thought.. - Zeibura (Talk) 23:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
i'd give it a bash myself but i'm extremely busy on other projects at the moment. hopefully i should have time later this week. he's linked to the face article over on dubstepforum, should prove a nice reference. --Kaini 00:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pondering the IoS quote again. It suggests that grime and dubstep are the same thing, which is misleading. If we do keep it, it should be moved down to the 03-05 section (I suppose it'd fit next to the thing about Grime and Grime 2), and accompanied by another referenced statement which clearly states that grime and dubstep are not the same thing. The national press is, after all, awful with music classification (cough electronica techno cough) but I guess the wider audience they feed is larger than the number of people who read people like Clark who know their stuff. - Zeibura (Talk) 11:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

i've added a bit to the intro, but i probably need to tweak it a bit more. big ref! --Kaini 23:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I was so ambivalent about this upthread, that Independent quote was really terrible. I removed two of the newspaper references because I felt like one was enough to establish notability, and they didn't really add anything other than that. If you think it's better we could also just say "by 2005-2006 the genre was attracting attention in national media such as x, y, and z."; if all we're trying to do is establish notability then we don't even really need a quote. Also the "By 2004 the genre was defined enough.." clause was still problematic in terms of OR and false authority, and the bit about Forward was somewhat misleading since it seems like Forward>> wasn't exclusively a dubstep night in 2004-05.--P4k 23:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly as if establishing notability is even a problem, we have more than enough multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Forward>> was not exclusively dubstep, as other parts of the article and some of the refs mention, grime and breakbeat DJs also used to play there around that time. The lead reads really quite well now, just a simple evaluation, which is what it should be really. - Zeibura (Talk) 11:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

GA status (2)

Think we're ready to nominate it yet? I can't see any obvious reasons why it wouldn't meet all 6 criteria. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Stability would probably be a problem, although that's kind of my fault.--P4k 23:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
We haven't really been edit warring, just moving stuff around every now and again. Note 3 on Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles states the difference between unstability and collaborative improvements, while note 5 at WP:WIAGA says if the article does seem unstable because of constructive editing, it should be placed on hold, where the reviewer would give us feedback as to what we need to resolve or whatever. I doubt it'd fail because we've all been editing it, but perhaps to avoid anything happening we should each read the article through one more time and make any changes, then discuss any conflicts? - Zeibura (Talk) 09:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
No, there's certainly no edit warring. I don't really know how the GA process works, so maybe you're right. There are things I'm dissatisfied with, but I can't really fix them and I guess it doesn't need to be perfect to pass GA. I probably won't be able to do more editing today, I'll try to read the article through tomorrow. I think we should also get Wickethewok to take a look at it as he offered to do upthread (full disclosure I knew Wicket IRL before I started editing Wikipedia).--P4k 19:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, definitely. His talk page says he's back on August 16, so that gives us some time to do some last editing. Is there anything in particular you're not happy with? - Zeibura (Talk) 19:23, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some feedback

Hiya, some feedback for you as I said. The bottom stuff under "Specific things for GA" is stuff that I think need to be done to pass GA. GA isn't very strict and kinda random, but I think those things all need to be looked at. As background, I have no specific knowledge of dubstep, but I know other electronicy music stuff. I also did some minor copy-editing type stuff that should be looked over to make sure I didn't screw up any facts (see diff). Anyways, my suggestions...

Specific things for GA
  • You need a longer lead, probably two paragraphs total, just summarize some more things
had a crack at this. fine-tune at will :) --Kaini 23:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless the quote is some sort of definitive, influential description of the genre, I'd keep any quotes to the body
  • Consistency in the references section - I like the {{cite}} templates personally, but its up to you guys
  • More descriptive text for the photos: briefly who the person is, etc...
  • Four non-free samples might be kinda hard to justify to a GA reviewer, considering it is possible to make some free versions of music from this genre
one of these is a free sample - the 'rhythm' one, which i believe zeibura or p4k made. i guess i could get someone to make a GPL bass drop too... --Kaini 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
oh ok, there's another at the end. --Kaini 00:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The Bass Clef one could probably go to be honest, I put that in at the start when there weren't any samples just to add some variation. I'll see if I can come up with another idea to replace the shackleton one as well. The other two are illustrative as they are though, as the article mentions the tracks, so this should be no problem. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Wikilinking: artists should be wikilinked once (the first time they are mentioned); the wikilinking presently is kind of arbitrary
working on it :P --Kaini 00:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Ensure the External links are appropriate as per WP:EL
  • I've marked some statements with {{fact}}; these need to fixed in some way
General improvements
  • This sentence is kinda long and confusing to parse: "However, the major distinguishing elements of dubstep are the use of samples, the fact it is largely instrumental, a characteristic propulsive, sparse rhythm,[6] and an almost omnipresent subbass (which dubstep night Forward>> has described as "b-lines to make your chest cavity shudder"[7])."
  • "If a song seems to be especially popular, the DJ will backspin the record..." - Many readers might not know what "backspin" means (I don't entirely know either)
  • "Rewinds are also an element of many of dubstep's precursors in a live context..." - I'm not sure what "in a live context" means here; rewinds are exclusively a live technique, right?
tweaked a bit. could maybe do with a bit more, still a tad clunky. --Kaini 00:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "This rather rigid format has evolved in recent times, unlike in Grime, where the focus tends to be on providing a framework for MCs to rap over." - What is unlike in Grime? That it evolved in recent times
  • "As a result, some grime DJs (such as Plastician) have begun playing more dubstep,[11] and some grime MCs (such as JME) have released tracks with a dubstep sound." - I don't think this naturally follows the previous sentence: why did the previous cause the latter? if it didn't, change the connecting phrasing
  • "...while Shackleton has recently produced tracks entirely lacking the traditional bass drop..." - maybe mention who this is? maybe an article for him if he's notable
he was wikilinked to Skull Disco in an audio example, the link in the article now too. --Kaini 23:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • "DJ Hatcha pioneered a new direction for dubstep, one that established the scene as a new sound" - fluffy music-mag talk, rephrase to be more concrete and informative (what's "a new sound" anyway?)
  • "...soon came into their own, bringing sound system thinking, dub values, and appreciation of jungle bass weight..." - "came into their own" is vague and I don't know what "sound system thinking", "dub values", or "jungle bass weight" are exactly
  • maybe instead of just saying 12" when referring to a vinyl single, maybe just say single, or vinyl single or 12" single
  • "The evening that queues at DMZ exceeded the capacity of the venue, prompting an immediate move to a larger capacity venue upstairs, has been described as a pivotal point in dubstep's history" - make this sentence more active, its all twisty and does not present the info in a logical order
  • "Forward>> brought grime DJs to the fore of the line up" - what does this actually mean; were they featured more often? promoted more heavily?
  • "2006 saw interest grow in the sound." - kind of a worthless little sentence; I personally don't like years seeing things, but that is possibly/probably a matter of opinion rather than formal style issue
  • "underground hard graft" - I don't think I know what "graft" means in this usage, not to mention such that is "underground" and "hard"
  • "appearing in many critics' "Best of..." lists for the year, notably The Wire's Best Album of 2006" - "Best Album" does not sound like a list, rephrase
  • "Dubstep has recently been receiving substantial international attention, with the help of ambassadors such as Baltimore DJ Joe Nice and Matt Carl from Canada." - don't use "recently" for obvious time-related issues; what are these DJs ambassadors of (maybe don't use this word)? maybe integrate "Joe Nice has played at DMZ" from the paragraph's last sentence
  • "Martin Clark has seen the Basic Channel influence that has long been present in dubstep recently evolving towards a more direct exchange of ideas" - what exactly is evolving here? the influence (this is how it reads)? dubstep itself? who exactly is exchanging ideas here?
  • I think Forward>> shouldn't be italicized, though correct me if I'm wrong - I don't think clubs are in italics, the articles didn't italicize it

Overall, very nice work! The form/presentation/organization of info is well done imo, so I don't think there's anything big holding this back from GA. A true collaborative effort, very enjoyable read. If you need me to explain any of my points or want suggestions on anything in particularly, feel free to say so here. Most of the stuff is kinda nitpicky anyway. Cheers! (yo P4k! ;-P ) Wickethewok 03:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Also, I suggest putting this up for peer review at some point to try to get at least one person who doesn't know much about electronic music to give their perspective (clarifications, unfamiliar jargon, etc). This is pretty close to GA if not there already, so you could even do that after the GA nom if you like. Wickethewok 06:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Various

Now has an article. This page seems to have a lot of active contributors, so I thought you'd all like to know. Chubbles 21:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice work.P4k 00:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Ready to nominate?

I'm almost feeling ready to nominate this for GA now, as all Wickethewok's points have been addressed, but just want to see if anyone has any objections. - Zeibura (Talk) 10:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)