Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 10:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 03:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review! I typically prefer to make copyedits myself and only place comments here when I have questions, though of course as always you should feel free to change or discuss any edits you happen to disagree with. Looking forward to it! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:45, 17 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

• Both album covers have appropriate NFURs, and I am persuaded of the encyclopedic importance of using both in this case. (Though I do wonder if there is a bit more commentary on the owl image in the cited DuBois & Cocq source, which would further strengthen the need to have two non-free images.) The other images have appropriate free licenses and suit the article well. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noted.

• With being in a despised minority, "despised" feels like a strong word to go in wikivoice supported only by a citation to the album booklet. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attributed.
    • Great, thanks. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe I am revealing some astonishing ignorance about music, but in "Releases" I can't work out what ICD891, CD RW 13, RW LP 13, 017 781-2, 004400177, BNM071LP all are. Some kind of... format? Or unique identifier? Can you add some wikilinks or glosses? I checked a handful of other album GAs and didn't see this kind of detail there. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're just the record companies' identifiers on the various album releases. I'm surprised they're not on other album articles, probably they are relying on links to web pages. They're just like ISBNs for books or DOIs for scientific papers.
    • Gotcha, that makes sense. I do think they're a bit confusing when presented in the prose this way -- an ISBN or DOI wouldn't be woven into a sentence like this. Maybe parentheticals? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• In 2003, the musicologist Olle Edström called the album's lyrics "still highly political", but noted that the music had changed -- the "still" and "changed" are a bit perplexing when it's not clear what they are being compared to. Her previous albums? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the trad. sound of her first album. Glossed.
    • I see, the gloss helps, thank you. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I wonder if the bit about Boine's family background belongs in the "'Ethnic' sound" section? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 07:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, not least because the 'ethnic sound' point is that it's NOT specifically Sami.
    • Hm, fair, but it feels out of place in a section called "Breakthrough album". The information is useful context, but it's not about the album or its release at all. Is there another place to put it, or additional information from that source which could assist in weaving this info with the rest of the article? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    On second thought, I think it is a stretch to tie this one to the prose clarity criterion, so if you are happy with it as-is I won't insist. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, let's leave it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• For the source check I evaluated cites 5, 6, 15, and 20 (as numbered in this diff. Everything checks out. I did notice that 6 and 20 were the same thing, so I combined them! Looking at the rest of the reference list, sources are reliable and appropriate. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Earwig checks out and no concerns from my source check. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Considering the lead again, I think doubting the music's specific connection to Sámi tradition or ethnicity may be too strong a summary of what the sources say. On my first reading that made me think the singer might not even be Sámi, but it seems like a milder critique than that. They seem to agree that there's a connection to Sámi tradition, just that it's also a little vague and mixed up with more general "world" music. I do think the lead should somehow capture the assessment so wonderfully expressed that she reminds Samish listeners in part of traditional jojk technique and convinces European listeners that it is, but can you revisit this wording with an eye to reducing ambiguity? Specifically, I don't want it to sound like she might not be Sámi. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. Nobody doubts she is Sámi; the comments ad the lead text say clearly this is about the music. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, the new version of the lead is much harder to misunderstand. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LEvalyn