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

Nominator: Luiysia (talk · contribs) 21:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Surfinsi (talk · contribs) 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This is my first review, but I think we can do this one quick. I've seen a few issues with prose and grammar, but nothing crazy. I'll make sure to check that out first and then move on to the sources.

I will be taking part in this review as an experienced editor for the Wikipedia:Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/May 2025. I'm excited to work alongside Surfinsi, I have outlined my process with GAN reviews at User:IntentionallyDense/October 2024 GAN backlog drive if you are curious. If you (or the nominator) have any questions at all feel free to reach out on my talk page or ping me here. Cheers! IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 15:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The genres of Bedroom Pop and Avant-Prog are not cited in the infobox and are not in the body of the article.
• The sources in the article just say that they met in 2018, they don't say when the band formed. You need to find a source confirming they formed the band in 2018

• The second sentence of the lead is a little wordy. It lists people that only mentioned as personnel members that aren't notable enough to have their own articles. You shouldn't include personnel in the second sentence of the lead of this article. Instead you could say that "They are accompanied by a rotating group of musicians" or something to that effect.
• The claim that God's Trashmen received critical acclaim has not been backed up by the body of the text. In the history section, it only talks about its release and how it was recorded. In the style section, it is only mentioned once and given the compliment "complex and rich arrangments" from only two sources: Pitchfork and Bandcamp Daily, hardly critical acclaim. Also, is has not been established by the sources that this album has led to them touring with Stereolab.
• The colon in the second to last sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is a little awkward
• Also, none of the sources mention these albums as having a more "polished" style.

• First sentence is a little awkward.
  • Serendipitously is more advanced vocabulary, perhaps you could replace it with something else.
  • Also the sentence uses after two times which makes it awkward to read.
  • Also, you mention that Clement was a friend of a friend. Were they meeting with the friend? Is it just a coincidence that they both share a friend. If the fact that they share a friend is irrelevant to how they met or how the band formed, then I don't think it should be included in the article.
• "Go Down Softly"/"the River" is a very weird way of quoting the song. The quotes around each song with a / makes it a little jumbled to read. Is there a way of writing this that's easier to read?
• I see that they opened for Stereo Lab in fall of 2022. Make sure to include the name of the tour.
• You cite citation number 10 twice in a row. You can remove the first one and it will still be valid. It'll save space
• Flaming Swords
  • Make sure to include the fact that it was released in 2022 in the sentence "The band ended the tour with the release of their second album and debut studio album Flaming Swords."
  • "Flaming Swords is recorded live in one session". "is" should be "was".
• Citation 14 should be outside the parenthesis
• Rong Weicknes shouldn't be wikiquoted twice in the body when it is wikiquoted in the lead
• Flaming Swords shouldn't be wikiquoted in the body when it is wikiquoted in the lead
• Stereolab shouldn't be wikiquoted in the body when it is wikiquoted in the lead
• "On Fat Possum Records". "On" should be "with"
• Is Steve Vealey an important sound engineer? You can keep the sentence stating that the takes were mixed and mastered together, as its an important detail for the album. Steve Vealey should be removed from this sentence if he is insignificant and should be relegated to the personnel section of the album article.

• The sentence starting with "Their third album" is a little wordy
  • First "multidimensional" is really vague and puffy. What does that even mean?
  • The way they layered multiple takes is mentioned twice in this article. Is there a way you can only mention it once or find a way to shorten its mention here and make the sentence more manageable.
• Last Sentence is unsourced. You NEED a citation here. Even if its obvious from listening to the lyrics of the song that its written in english and french, you need a reliable secondary source to back this information up and confirm it as significant to the article.

• "Ma Clement" should just be "Clement". She's already been named, so we should just use last names for short hand.
• Second sentence is a little awkward.
  • Maybe replace ethoses with philosophies

• Its mentioned in the lead that Zach Phillips is a multi-instrumentalist. Could you include other instruments he plays? Make sure to include a citation, because you mention he's an instrumentalist, but none of the specific instruments he plays. That will need a citation

• "Auxiliary Members and Collaborators" What do you mean by this. Simply because someone contributes to one of their albums doesn't make them a member of the band. If you want to claim that people in this list are members of the band, you need reliable citations to indicate this.
• The vast majority of these people should simply be relegated to the personel section of the relevant album article.

• Do we know what the label was for "God's Trashmen Sent to Right the Mess"? It should be included. If it was self released, that should be included in the parenthesis.
• Same thing with Aerondynes. What was the label?
• For the singles, make sure to include the years and labels under which they were released.

• The citation formatting is fine, but it would be nice to get a few archive links to the sources.

• First sentence of the lead, with sources 1, 2, and 3.
  • Everything here is supported by the citations except for two statements. First, Zach Phillips is never said to be a multi-instrumentalist in these citations, only that he is a pianist. Second, it never says that the band formed in 2018, only that the two met in 2018.
• First sentence of History, with sources 1, 5, and 6.
  • Checks out
• First sentence of the second paragraph of History, with sources 7 and 8
  • Two statements aren't backed up in this sentence. First, while the toneglow article says the album was released in 2021, it doesn't say that it was released in January. The bandcamp reference also doesn't give a release date. Second, while the toneglow article talks about the group recording in mono, it never explicitly says that they did so for God's Trashmen
• Second to last sentence of the second paragraph of History, with sources 11 and 12
  • Neither of the sources support this, and the reddit source is completely useless. The bandcamp source looks like it could be mined for info that can be used elsewhere, but it doesn't back up this claim.
• Second to last sentence of the third and last paragraph of History, with sources 17 and 18
  • Everything here is backed up, except for the statement that it took them a week to record the album
• Third sentence of the first paragraph of Style, with sources 11 and 20
  • This is good, but an attribution would be nice.

• Source 1 (Davis, Ted - Band to Watch: Fievel is Glauque)
  • This source is only used with other sources, and criticism is in the multiple references section.
• Source 2 (Fievel is Glauque share "Save the Phenomenon," announce debut studio LP)
  • Scanning Things I Can't See is never mentioned in this source, no release date is given. The short film isn't mentioned either.
• Source 3 (Davis, Ted - Fievel is Glauque, "I'm Scanning Things I Can't See")
  • Source Checks out
• Source 4 (Helfand, Raphael - Song You Need: Fievel is Glauque remains mysterious)
  • Andre Sacalxot and Eleonore Kenis are never mentioned in this article.
• Source 5 (Fievel is Glauque - Toutpartout)
  • This is only used in conjunction with other sources, so go to the multiple references section
• Source 6 (Gutierrez, Joe - Fievel is Glaque | Feature Interview)
  • It never explicitly says that Aerodynes was released in 2022, only that it was released "recently".
• Source 7 (Noel, Jude - Tone Glow 090: Fievel is Glauque)
  • Only used with another source, look at the multiple references section.
• Source 8 (Bowe, Miles - Fievel is Glauque, "God's Trashmen Sent to Right the Mess")
  • Only used with another source, look at the multiple references section.
• Source 9 (Go Down Softly / the River, by Fievel is Glauque)
  • The second sentence that this source is cited with is correct, but the first sentence isn't. This is the bandcamp for their single, not for their first album. You need a different source for the first sentence.
• Source 10 (Pearis, Bill - "Fievel is Glauque prep debut album, on tour with Stereolab (listen to "Save the Phenomenon")")
  • First, the source doesn't say that the success of the album led to Fievel is Glauque being a part of the tour. Also, it would be better to cite the bandcamp page for Flaming Swords as well so we can get a confirmed release date, because this article is before the album was released.
• Source 11 (Bowe, Miles - "Fievel is Glauque, "Flaming Swords"")
  • Two of the uses of these citations I went over in the multiple references section. The other use of it in the style section is good.
• Source 12 (Reddit Post)
  • This is a REDDIT POST?! You can't use this as a citation, there isn't even any information here. You need a reliable secondary source.
• Source 13 (Cheloksy, Danielle - "Fievel Is Glauque Announce New Album 'Rong Weicknes': Hear "As Above From Below"")
  • This source is good.
• Source 14 (Nevins, Jake - "Fievel Is Glauque Wants to Make You Laugh. Then Cry")
  • This source is good.
• Source 15 (Jones, Abby - "Fievel Is Glauque – "Love Weapon"")
  • This is fine. "Today we get" is a little vague, maybe citing the bandcamp page for this one as well would remove the ambiguity.
• Source 16 (Monroe, Jazz - "Fievel Is Glauque Announce New Album Rong Weicknes, Share Song: Listen")
  • The fact that its their second studio album and third album can be inferred easily, but having a source that states it explicitly would be nice. Second, this was put out before this was released. Once again it would be nice to have the bandcamp page to confirm the release.
• Source 17 (Soutar, Elise - "Fievel is Glauque Make Joy Delightfully Anachronistic on Rong Weicknes")
  • See Sentences with multiple references above.
• Source 18 (Press-Reynolds, Kieran - "Fievel Is Glauque: Rong Weicknes")
  • This source is good except for the fact that it doesn't say that one of the takes are heavily improvised
• Source 19 (Donelson, Marcy - "Rong Weicknes - Fievel Is Glauque)
  • This source is okay, but under Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, All Music does not have consensus on whether or not its a reliable source, so if you can find a better source for this fact it would be preferable.
• Source 20 (Shosa, Travis - "Fievel Is Glauque: Flaming Swords")
  • This source is good.
• Source 21 (Beaumont-Thomas, Ben)
  • This source is good.
• Source 22 (God's Trashmen Sent to Right the Mess | Fievel Is Glauque - Bandcamp)
  • I'm not going to check sources 22 through 24, I'm sure its right, but this should be in the personnel section of the album article, not the band's page.
• Source 23 (Flaming Swords | Fievel Is Glauque - Bandcamp)
• Source 24 (Rong Weicknes | Fievel Is Glauque - Bandcamp)
• Source 25 (Deville, Chris - "Fievel Is Glauque Share New Single "Clues Not To Read": Listen")
  • This source is good
• Source 26 (Pareles, Jon - "Coi Leray Borrows a Hip-Hop Classic, and 8 More New Songs")
  • This source is good.

• In the Infobox template, you could probably include origin and instruments.

• They meet in 2018 and release their first album in 2021. Is there anything bridging the gap between those three years. If its documented somewhere, you could probably write a whole paragraph on it.
• Some of these sources have a few more details that could be mined, sources with multiple paragraphs are cited for only a sentence or two. I know most of the text in these sources won't be useable, as there's a lot of fluff and opinion, but there might be some gold there.

• I looked at the sources for the reviews and I feel like there's a lot more to be gleaned. You could probably get two or three sentences from each review. It would space out people's opinions instead of them being crushed right next to each other.
• The first paragraph would be less jumbled if you split it into two paragraph. The first one should be about the genre they fall into, their composition style, and what reviewers think about their style. The second paragraph should be about the recording techniques they use. The second paragraph would be a great place to talk about Zach Phillip's multi-instrumentalism.

• I don't know if the band has won any awards, but if they have it would be good to put them in a section for their awards and recognition.

• You could probably add loads of categories to this article. Try and see if you can add a few more

• 1
  • 1a: There are some grammar errors and word choice that make the article a little crowded and hard to understand. Not Passed.
  • 1b: The article is almost good on this front. There are a few words like "multidimensional" which are a little vague. Also, the lead shouldn't need citations, it should all be in the body. Not Passed
• 2
  • 2a: All citations are in a reference section that is at the appropriate spot on the page. Pass.
  • 2b: There is one citation missing. Also some citations don't confirm what they're being cited for. Not Passed.
  • 2c: There doesn't seem to be any original research. It just seems like the nominator remembered things he read from the sources and wrote them down without citing the source it came from. Not Passed.
  • 2d: Checked it, no plagiarism. Pass
• 3
  • 3a: I feel like there is some more content than can be added to the History and style section. Also, an awards section would be good if the band has received any. Not Passed.
  • 3b: It focuses on the main topic and doesn't go into too much detail on any one particular point. Pass.
• 4: The band doesn't have any major controversies, and the article doesn't seem to be promoting them. Pass.
• 5: Definitely stable, I don't see any edit wars on the article or your talk page. Pass.
• 6
  • 6a: Images are good and are creative commons. Pass.
• 6b: Minor quibble, it would be nice if you could point out who is Zach and who is Clement in the captions of one of the photos; however, the images illustrate it well and the captions are accurate. Pass.

As an additional help, I'll dump any sources that I can find that might be useful here.

• https://tapeop.com/blog/2024/11/05/fievel-glauque-new-album-rong-weicknes
• https://www.thelineofbestfit.com/tracks/fievel-is-glauque-haut-contre-bas
• https://playback.cubacchanal.com/zach-phillips-of-fievel-is-glauque-talks-representation-reworks-and-new-record-rong-weicknes/
• https://www.the2010s.net/fievel-is-glauque

@Surfinsi: @IntentionallyDense: Hi, thanks for the review! I've made changes according to your feedback, and added some more info from reviews. I am not aware of any awards they have received (aside from top 50 albums from various publications) so I did not add a section for that.

Re: Zach Phillips being a multi-instrumentalist - he is described as such in one of the Bandcamp articles, but it seems like the multiple instruments are all different sorts of keyboard instruments (wurlitzer, clavinet, synthesizer keyboard, grand piano, etc), and he's also described as a pianist elsewhere, so I've compromised with "keyboardist."

Additionally, I've not been able to find any sources that describe or elaborate on the gap between their meeting in 2018 and the release of their first album in 2021, so I've reworded it to not specifically say they formed then. Hope the changes look good to you. Luiysia (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please go over all of my suggestions before you ask me to review your work and mark which ones you've completed above as you're doing them. I can already see in the history section you still haven't changed "is" to "was" for the Flaming Swords sentence. It would be really tedious for me to check every single suggestion against the current article considering you haven't followed all of them. Please go through ALL of my suggestions and mark down that you've completed them. Surfinsi (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Luiysia@Surfinsi where are we at with this review? It doesn't look like there's been much activity recently and I just wanted to check in. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 02:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing IntentionallyDense, @Luiysia hasn't edited for over a month. If they don't respond to this ping, and no one else takes up the review, it might be time for @Surfinsi to fail this. GoldRomean (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I haven't had time to do extensive edits recently. I can do some work on this later this week but if you feel failing is appropriate that's okay Luiysia (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to know you're still here. I'll leave the decision to the actual reviewer  :). Cheers, GoldRomean (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Luiysia @Surfinsi - just checking in again. GoldRomean (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @GoldRomean, I'm still here. I don't know about @Luiysia though. Surfinsi (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. Up to you if you want to fail or wait. GoldRomean (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Surfinsi has given you a lot to work with so I'm not worried about the comprehensiveness of this review. I do just want to point out that the GA criteria only requires the article to be "broad" and not "comprehensive" in the way a FA is. To elaborate on this, when reading a GA you shouldn't be left questioning anything major (like a date of birth) but not every little detail needs to be included. This is a hard thing to balance but I thought I'd throw it out there as it is a bit confusing. Keep up the great work, both of you. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Luiysia and User:Surfinsi: What is the status of this review? Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:49, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]