This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum Alternative music Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Electronic music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

As a heads up, I'm going to be removing a lot of the content from "Recording and release". There is some useful information regarding singles and Trait that will be kept, but a lot of the sourcing used is from tweets, setlist.fm or other non-reliable/primary sources. I aim to get this up to GA status so unless other sources for this information can be found, it will be removed. Rambley (talk) 14:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Spirittheyvegone, I'd like to discuss a few content removals or additions you've made to this article lately. I'd just like to hear your thoughts behind some of these.

• Why was the section about critical reception removed from the lede? Stating the reaction from critics is an important part of the lede and almost all music articles I've seen do this.
• Why were the release formats removed from both the lede and the Release section?
• I see you removed the background section that covers the band as with How to Leave Town. I operate from this style guide which states It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the artist's history and/or previously released albums. If it's necessary to put these items into context for the reader to further their understanding of later content in the article, a background section is suggested. A reader who has no idea who CSH is would be missing context here; is it a problem to include it? I agree some more information about MADLO itself could be added to background, but I don't see a reason to remove all of this information.
• Some of the sources that have been re-added are strange to me. The information about MADLO releasing 10 years after 1 is sourced with a Bandcamp link. Do any other publications mention this? Why is it notable enough to be included? I also think citing Will's write-up for a lot of the article isn't great, but it could be worked in.
• What's the issue with repeating sources? I think having many different sources is obviously a good thing as it gives notability and credibility, but I fail to see what the issue with repeating is when it directly relates to article content. Especially for something like the Composition section, which you intend to re-word per the edit summary, is it not important to describe what critics say about track composition?

I think we're both on the same page and would love to see this article be the best it can. I'd just like to discuss these changes or planned changes. Cheers. Rambley (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a day and I intend to re-add some of the removed content. I'll put the things removed here and some rationales behind them.

• It was released on May 1, 2020 through Matador Records on CD, LP and digital services. While we could debate if including the formats within the lede is appropriate or not since this differs from article to article, removing the formats from the Release section is something I don't understand. That's important information for the reader, no?
• Critics reacted mostly positively to the album, enjoying the band's new electronic and EDM influences along with its lyricism. Some reviewers criticised the album's experimentation, feeling it wasn't fully fleshed out or that the tracks weren't overly memorable. I'm unsure why this was removed. Almost all music articles I've read have some reference to critic response. The lede is meant to give an overall summary of the article before the reader dives into it in more depth; critic response is a significant part of an album.
• The entire background section was reverted to how it was before I started making changes. I've already linked to the WikiProject Albums style guide above which does advise including some information about the band to help grow the reader's understanding. I do agree that it's missing more information specifically about MADLO. This can be worked in. I would advise against including that large quote from Will in the article; MOS:QUOTE states Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate. The less quotes the better in my eyes. I also don't really like overusing primary sources, even if it's from the band themselves.
• While critical reception was generally positive, fan reception was more divisive, with fans noting the many divergences from the band's previous work. Who? What fans? What source talks about these fan responses? Additionally, the reliability of that Binaural source, at least right now, is dubious to me. I could be wrong on that front, but I think a better source could be used if this needs to be included.

Again, I think we both want to see this article be the best it can be, and I hope this mini write-up offers some explanation for the changes I made and why I think some were slightly unconstructive. Cheers. Rambley (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi rambley. I've unfortunately been a bit busy, so I'll try to address all the points I can, but I apologize if I miss anything.

- i assume this was just a section i had reverted, as i felt some of the sentences were structured in a way that was a bit clunky. i.e. the sentences "Critics reacted mostly positively [...]. Some reviewers criticized the album's experimentation [...]" could probably be reduced down to just one sentence. the lede is meant as a general summary of the article, it doesn't need to go into explicit detail on things that can be gleamed on the same page just from scrolling down.

- as mentioned in the style guide "If it's necessary to put these items into context for the reader to further their understanding of later content in the article". knowing the details of who the band is and how they started making music can help, but it's important to also consider how much of it is adding necessary context for that specific article. It makes sense to mention "how to leave town" was will's final solo release, or that it was written at the same time as "teens of denial", but it isn't necessary to detail the full history of the band. you could compare it to the background section in the article for radiohead's "in rainbows", which mentions the band's hiatus following "hail to the thief", but doesn't go into their history together, or their six prior releases. these are still first and foremost meant as articles for the albums, not the band.

- "The information about MADLO releasing 10 years after 1 is sourced with a Bandcamp link. [...] Why is it notable enough to be included?" I do think the decision to release the album on the 10th anniversary of their debut is significant enough to at least warrant a mention, it would certainly have been an intentional decision on the behalf of the band and the label. better source could definitely be added should one exist.

- "What's the issue with repeating sources?" it's not so much an issue with reusing information from existing citations, but more-so having a repeated inline citation used for multiple sentences in a row, especially with information that is all coming from the same source. only one inline citation would be necessary at the end of those sentences.

- "[...] removing the formats from the Release section is something I don't understand. That's important information for the reader, no?" i think it's worth mentioning that the formats differed in track-list and runtime, but it isn't super necessary to specify every release format. again, the lede is just meant as a summary.

- "I would advise against including that large quote from Will in the article." i think the quote works since it was the album's press release. even if it directly came from the band, it was necessary context, as it was the first publicly available information available for the album.

- "Who? What fans? What source talks about these fan responses?" this is discussed in the binural article.

- "Additionally, the reliability of that Binaural source, at least right now, is dubious to me." i'm not sure what would make it dubious, other than it being a smaller publication. clarification would be appreciated.

hopefully this can clear some things up a bit. thanks Spirittheyvegone (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for the response. I think the first thing I'd like to say is that I apologise for the tone in my original messages; I think I could have written my thoughts in a much better way.

I think the clarifications you've offered are extremely helpful, so I'll just leave a couple last notes I have.

• it isn't super necessary to specify every release format. again, the lede is just meant as a summary. While I wouldn't mind not including the formats in the lede itself, my objection was that the formats were removed from the Release section itself. This was confusing to me since I think the article should talk about what formats MADLO was released on, especially with all of these different versions.
• In regards to that Binaural source, I think my objections related to the reliability of the publication itself. I'm not going to pretend I know much about Binaural, so I'm probably completely wrong, but it just seemed like a poor source at the time.
• In regards to the article talking about the album being released ten years after 1, I don't think it should be included unless a source specifically mentions this. If there is one that talks about it, absolutely include it in the article. I think it's an interesting fact, as long as it's properly sourced.

Again, thank you for the clarifications. I intend to try and get this up to GA standard so any help you can offer is appreciated. Rambley (talk) 20:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

     1. Citation 1 is widely used within the article, its from a review from an online magazine. I don't particularly trust this source however. Cross-referencing with the corresponding wikiproject's list of source evaluation shows that it is not mentioned. In addition, music isn't the sole focus of the magazine. However, its usage in the article is mostly fine I suppose, being used primarily for critical analysis points, and is cited alongside complementary sources. However I do believe a better source can be used for the "abbreviated as MADLO" claim.

     2. Citation 2 is from a Stereogum article, the current consensus is that Stereogum is a reliable music publication.
     3. Citation 3 is alright for how it's used, being a simple list of the bands previous material, so using it to simply state that the band has said previous material is a decent usage.
     4. Citation 4 is, similar to Citation 3, good for it's usage in the article, which is to list personnel involved.
     5. This source is a primary source, which is ok for the second instance, where it's used to quote the artist, but for the first instance I think a secondary source might be better.

     6. An interview is good to be used for these details
     7. Source doesn't have consensus as a good source, but the claim made is verifiable.
     8. An interview is fine to use for a quotation.
     9. see #2
 10-12. This shows consensus that these are all reliable sources regarding albums.
    13. This site is generally reliable, but contains some usergenerated content, however this usergen content is not used, so this is a good source.
 14-20. This shows consensus that these are all reliable sources regarding albums.
    21. Verifiable source
    22. Reputable music publication.
    23. This source is ok to be used in the way that it is, quoting the critical review.
 24-32. This shows consensus that these are all reliable sources regarding albums.
    33. Verifiable
    34. Reputable sourcing, works here and the info provided is verifiable.
    35. Verifiable
    36. For scoring this is a ok source
    37. Interview for quote
    38. Reputable music publication
 39-42. Award lists being cited for the article awards list.
    43. Album linear notes are fine to use here
 44-48. Charts being cited for the chart performance data.