Speedway

Talk:Pop (Gas album)

Did you know nomination

  • Source: Intended as an April Fools' hook
5x expanded by Lazman321 (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 16 past nominations.

Lazman321 (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

GA review

The following discussion 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.


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

Nominator: Lazman321 (talk · contribs) 08:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: LastJabberwocky (talk · contribs) 20:42, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm picking up your nomination! - LastJabberwocky (talk) 20:42, 20 February 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

Background and release

hailing from Germany's techno music scene since the 1990s. → taking part in Germany's techno music scene since the 1990s.

with his most well-known being Gas. → mostly well-known as Gas

Composition

"Ranging in musical purpose" feels a little too ambiguous. I believe you shortened AllMusic's "some rhythmic, others melodic, still others simply ambient.." into kinds of musical purposes. It makes sense once I read the review, but I think we have enough space to clarify in the article what are the purposes.

  • ..ranging from rhythmic, melodic, and simply ambient. The loops carry on seemingly to no end, filled with enough nuances that provide a "steady and sustained ambience".

Reception

I really, really nice!! I rarely see it that compact and detailed for lesser known albums.

@LastJabberwocky: Thanks for the review. My changes per your review are slightly different than what you requested, but I do hope they improved the article to your liking. In particular, while I did clarify the "musical purposes" in the composition section, I worry that your specific request would've veered into close paraphrasing. Again, thanks. Lazman321 (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lazman321:, all good no further comments. Promoting! - LastJabberwocky (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2025 (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.