Talk:Ocean of Sound

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ocean of Sound/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WonderBoy1998 (talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC) Hello. I am going to be reviewing this article. It's pretty short so hopefully the review won't take a lot of time. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

General

• The first sentence in the lead "Ocean of Sound is a compilation album produced by English musician and author David Toop" kind of opposes the infobox's mentioning of "Compilation album by Various artists". Consider using a word other than "produced", for example "compiled by" or something.
• No dead links and rationales provided for any nonfree file.
• No occurrence of close paraphrasing.

Background

• " In the book, Toop asked what ambient music can be defined as: "Calm, therapeutic sounds for chilling out or music which taps into the disturbing, chaotic undertow of the environment?" - I think this sentence needs to be reworked. Consider not quoting an entire sentence.
• I think you should include the reason why the album went out of print. The Idolator source clearly mentions that.
• Consider including Spin Media in the publisher syntax of the Idolator ref.

• Publisher parameter is optional in most cases, but it was used for "Idolator" instead of the Work parameter to avoid forced italics. Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "The Independent wrote that, because he used sources such as Oriental music, minimalism, and classical composers, "Toop navigates smoothly between the various strands that have contributed to the current techno/'fourth-world' style of ambient-pop."" - It would be better to move the "because" part to the end of the sentence. It seems contrived, forced, as of now.
• "but also stand alone as separate pieces that are interesting, if not excellent" - I don't think such sentences should be included since they fare as direct quotes rather than paraphrases.

• This is a paraphrase of "not only do the individual selections range from intriguing to great, but every one connects effortlessly to the next under the magic combination of taste and knowledge." What did you mean by "direct quotes" though? Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I just think the "if not excellent" part should be removed. Still there is nothing that prevents me from passing it. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• As the Allmusic rating has been included in the Critical ratings box, a mentioning of its review in the body is necessary.
• http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/pnj/deans96.php - "Dean's list" here refers to Christgau I assume? If not the sentence " Robert Christgau, the poll's creator, named it the best compilation of 1996 in his own list for the Pazz & Jop" will need to be amended.

• Yes, "dean's list" is Christgau's own list. Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Include publishers of Chicago Reader and Allmusic in the syntax, Wrapports and Rovi Corporation, respectively.

• Per Template:Citation#Publisher, publisher of periodicals are omitted. Also, in past FA reviews, editors have preferred for consistent citation formatting, which in cases like this meant either include publishers for all citations or none. Dan56 (talk) 00:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than these concerns this is a nice, short, well-written article that definitely deserves to be a GA. Well done! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixes per concerns I did not respond to. Dan56 (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Passing --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 15:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sequels

{{GAR request}}

For basic GA breadth, the article is missing discussion of the compilation sequels: Crooning on Venus, Guitars on Mars, etc. czar 14:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Also the book and companion album are covered together in sources, as part of the same entity. The book should be better represented within this article's scope as well. czar 01:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

@Czar: Are these concerns still present in the article? If so, would you like to open a GAR to resolve them? Z1720 (talk) 20:14, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Ocean of Sound/1 czar 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Ocean of Sound

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.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)

As noted earlier this year on the talk page, for basic GA breadth, the article is missing discussion of the compilation sequels: Crooning on Venus, Guitars on Mars, etc. Also the book (Ocean of Sound) and its companion compilation album are covered together in sources, indicating that they're part of the same entity. I wager that the book would be best represented within this article's scope rather than as a separate article. czar 01:53, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

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.