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

Nominator: Locust member (talk · contribs) 02:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Averageuntitleduser (talk · contribs) 03:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely to see you again, Locust member. I've been so impressed with your work on music articles these past months! It's nothing short of herculean. I had a sneaking suspicion that this was notable (maybe Fishmonger too, food for thought), and it's fabulous seeing it realized! Excited to review. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 03:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much!! I’m very glad to see you again also, I still reference Wallsocket for almost every article I expand/create :). Also, I think I have some plans for getting Fishmonger an article :)) Locust member (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to quickly weigh in here and say that this article easily fails good article status. The references here are very lacking, with nearly half being either from Bandcamp or Soundcloud. Plus the article is incredibly short and does not provide a sufficient amount information to provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the EP. It might be good enough for C class, but even this is not certain. I still want to thank you for creating various music articles. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there; thank you for your opinion. However, I’m not sure if you actually read through the article or just glanced over it; the sources being “half bandcamp or soundcloud” generally regard the release of the album and its personnel (Underscores only gave detailed credits in the actual tracks themselves, so it seems to take up more references). However, this is passable per WP:PERSONNEL and WP:A/S. Also, length is not a part of the good article criteria; if you expect every music article to look like a Springsteen, West, or Swift article, you are mistaken. Also, the topic of an article heavily determines what class/criteria is appropriate, I would recommend reading this essay to learn how this works. If this was Thriller (album), I would greatly understand your criticism, however this is an EP with a very limited number of sources. I would also get if there was significantly more information available from reliable sources that I did not include, but if you take a look at google search, you will see I have included everything I could possibly have, which is why I believe this article is broad enough. Again, thank you for your opinion, and we can wait for Averageuntitleduser to weigh in. Locust member (talk) 13:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the well-formulated response. I tend to value comprehensiveness in Wikipedia articles to ensure that any question a reader might reasonably have about a topic is answered. That is usually at the top of my mind when evaluating the merits of any Wikipedia article. It's understandable that the coverage for Springsteen's or Swift's musical output dwarfs that of Underscores. The relatively limited coverage on this EP likely presented some challenges in creating a high quality article. Not all articles will have enough coverage to warrant good article status, but that does not preclude this article from attaining that distinction. Having read the article more thoroughly, it's apparent that the prose is of fine quality. Best of luck. Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for realizing that. I agree with your points on comprehensiveness, which I believe this article has. It covers Underscores’ career before the EP, the production process behind it, a description of the songs and the sound of the EP, its release, and the reception it got. That is pretty standard for album articles. Even so, there are many other, drastically shorter articles that have been awarded GA just because of their conciseness. Length does not always equal quality :) I appreciate you for reading though the article and thinking the writing is of quality. Locust member (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually include a "Summary" section in reviews, but I'll stay here instead. Thank you @Locust member: for your patience, and @Dobbyelf62: for your input! Regarding comprehensiveness, I did not get the impression that it was a failing issue. The release, title, and personnel information provided by the primary sources is pretty standard, useful information. And it seems almost all of the relevant secondary sources are here. Believe me, there aren't many to work with: the Rolling Stone and Atlantic profiles remain among the few authoritative sources about Underscores's earlier career. Anyways, I gather that you, Dobbyelf, have become more favorable toward the article's comprehensiveness, so I believe the review can move forward. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 16:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the review! I addressed all comments :) Locust member (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Locust member: this looks good to pass! Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• It also drew the attention of other musicians, such as Lido and Glaive. — specify that the "it" is Fishmonger.
  •  Done
• labelled — "described".
  •  Done
• It begins and ends with an old recording of the American DJ and producer Skrillex talking before he made dubstep. — for clarity, "...talking, dated to before he made dubstep."
  •  Done
• is reminiscent of 3OH!3's crunk-pop music — maybe: "30H!3's music, which combines crunk and pop".
  •  Done
• A downtempo, R&B, and glitch song, "Heck" is followed by "Gunk", a dubstep song. — "'Heck', a downtempo, R&B, and glitch song..."
  •  Done
• Darville felt that no other musician is able to blend hyperpop with a pop-punk influence in the way Underscores can. — let's revise, how about: "Darville thought Underscores embraced a pop-punk influence on the EP more effectively and prominently than is usual for hyperpop artists."
  •  Done
• "Tongue in Cheek" or "Tongue and Cheek"? Some journalist messed up!
  • Haha I didn't even notice they made a typo. Fixed

Source quality is great. Rolling Stone is good for culture, and AllMusic's uses are fine. Formatting is good too. Only a one-off in the spot-check. Also...

• Cite Rolling Stone after: "Leight described the latter as beginning 'like an electrical fire' and 'downshifting to coffee-house balladry'."
  •  Done whoops..

• Helfand, Raphael (January 27, 2022). "Underscores' 'Everybody's Dead!' Video Is an Absurdist Nightmare". The Fader. Archived from the original on January 27, 2022. Retrieved February 3, 2025.
  • Looks good. Y
• Leight, Elias (January 26, 2022). "'Let's Make Producer Porn': Dubstep Renegade Underscores Is Soundtracking the Apocalpyse". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on January 26, 2022. Retrieved February 3, 2025.
  • Looks good except for one thing! The challenge for Fearmonger was not to incorporate guitar on every track but to only start producing once a firm idea for each song had formed. Also fix in the lead.
    •  Done, I misunderstood the article but I realize it now
• Shutler, Ali (September 6, 2023). "Underscores: "I think hyper-pop is officially dead"". NME. Archived from the original on September 7, 2023. Retrieved February 3, 2025.
  • Looks good. Y
• Darville, Jordan (December 8, 2021). "10 songs you need in your life this week". The Fader. Archived from the original on December 8, 2021. Retrieved February 3, 2025.
  • Looks good. Y

I found that the major sources are used and that the main points are given. Here are some suggestions to add a few sentences:

• Using source 1, You could add a sentence about the premise of the "Everybody's Dead!" music video.
  •  Done
• Using Rolling Stone, you could mention the feeling of existential dread Underscores felt after Fishmonger, which ultimately inspired Fearmonger.
  •  Done
• Using this article, you could mention the New Jersey setting.
  •  Done
• This article elaborates on the lyrics of "Girls and Boys". Incorporate (or don't) as you wish.
  •  Done, I saw this article while writing the wiki page but was unsure of its reliability (just because I've seen no discussion on the source)
    • The magazine seems like a big deal in Australia, and I see them cited on 10 featured articles and 57 good articles. Thought I'd say that, as they write about hyperpop a fair bit. Averageuntitleduser (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No issues here. Opinions are attributed.

No edit wars or content disputes.

EP cover has proper fair-use rationale. The images of her on tour don't seem so relevant or useful for this article.