Talk:Draft 7.30

Fair use rationale for Image:AutechreDraft730.jpeg

Image:AutechreDraft730.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AutechreDraft730.jpeg

Image:AutechreDraft730.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Draft 7.30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/features/the-bleeping-noise-in-your-head-thatll-be-autechre-593705.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926223124/http://www.warprecords.com/ography/release.php?cat=WARP111 to http://www.warprecords.com/ography/release.php?cat=WARP111

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Draft 7.30. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120919114729/http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/autechre/draft-730.htm to http://www.stylusmagazine.com/reviews/autechre/draft-730.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Removal of review sources & my rationale

Just writing this to note I've removed some review sources including Q, Uncut, Mojo and URB from the professional ratings template box on this article. My rationale for doing so is below in case they are re-added:

- In current iterations of the article, both before my expansion and some recent additions, these quotes are simply taken from the Metacritic page for the album.

- Citations of these sources are, in their current iterations, poor; they are extremely bare, only containing the date and page of the review and no other details such as exact date, issue number, volume, author, etc.

- GA criterion 2 notes that "enough information must be supplied so that the reviewer is able to identify the source". The current citations of these sources do not supply enough information for both reviewers and general readers.

- Most importantly, the template documentation for the "Professional ratings" template directly states "The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other numeric score". These sources were not discussed in the prose, and it would be nearly impossible to, considering they boil down to single quotes.

If versions of these sources can be supplied that include more than just singular quotes and have enough information for them to be easily tracked down, I am more than happy to re-add them to the article and include some prose. However, as it stands, I don't see a quote, a month and year and a page number as a sufficient source. Other non-online sources are quoted in this article and include proper citation. Rambley^[who?] 10:26, 12 April 2026 (UTC)

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:Draft 7.30/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rambley (talk · contribs) 23:07, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: RTSthestardust (talk · contribs) 17:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

• Hello, my name is RTSthestardust, and I am willing to review your nomination of Draft 7.30 for GA - RTSthestardust (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

  Done! There were various tiny things that I implemented/fixed, but outside of that, you're completely good to go. Congrats for your GA! - RTSthestardust (talk) 22:02, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

GA Criteria Table

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Very good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No issues here
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No issues here
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	It contains no original research; I also highly recommend archiving sources to prevent link rot. Some of these links are old
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Highest copyvio is 13%, which is great
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The album's lead, background, production, composition, release, critical reception, track listing, personnel, and charts are well-detailed
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Very consistent, with no distracting issues spotted
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No issues here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Your percentage takes up 87.7% of the whole authorship. Very stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Two non-free images, the album cover and a track sample, both carry proper sources and rationales.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Alt text could be recommended for the album artwork, but the sample's description is good.
	7. Overall assessment.

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.

Discussion about whom

The opening paragraph states that the album "was seen as a return to form for the duo compared to Confield". But Confield is well regarded. It has a higher metacritic rating than Draft 7.30 and a higher rating on Rate Your Music. ~2026-34936-63 (talk) 11:03, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Ledes are meant to be a summary of the entire article; multiple points in the "Reception" section relate to the quotation you pointed out.

Some examples:

"Writing for AllMusic, John Bush said the album was more "compelling" and "inviting" than Confield, noting that "listeners might actually return for multiple listens""

"In a review for the A.V. Club, Andy Battaglia said the album had a "redeeming sense of purpose" and applied Confield's ideas to "less embarrassingly stunted ends""

"Writing for Playlouder, Iain Moffat wrote that the album "can sometimes feel like a slightly unfinished piece of work", though it was a "unqualified success" in terms of a return to form."

Ratings on RYM don't matter for Wikipedia articles & just because an album has a higher Metacritic rating, it does not mean comments by other reviewers are offset. Rambley^[who?] 14:30, 14 June 2026 (UTC)