Talk:Cambodian Rocks/GA1

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Zezen in topic Ta to all

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  • Hi, I'll review this, seems very interesting and sad. FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • I guess the "recorded" parameter could be added to the infobox, with the approximate span of years mentioned?
    •  Y The sources seem more or less uniform in characterizing the releases as being from the late 60s and early 70s (the Khmer Rouge started in 1975), but I don't see specifics. Erring on the side of generality, I just went with 1960s-1970s. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Seems (according to some Youtube comments) the drums were "enhanced" for the CD with digital drum overdubs (and faster speed)? If so, should certainly be mentioned, something to look into...
    • This is a hard one. I saw this, too, in the comments of a blog post and tried to find more information. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any reliable source for it (i.e. not in the comments). I also couldn't find any version that was clearly the "original" for all but a couple. The comments about it being common to rework older songs with newer techniques makes sense, but I didn't want to get into OR by looking into that phenomenon and then presuming it's the case here. For now it seems best omitted to me. Curious as to your thoughts, though. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
      • As an example of what they're talking about, if you're interested, here are two versions of a Ros Sereysothea song (on YouTube): presumed original? and the one on this album. There's a particular [synthesizer?] sound that differentiates the two (possibly other differences, but that stuck out). The thing is, all I have to say that it was added 30 years later is some blog/youtube comments. Synthesizers and music production is outside of my wheelhouse, but given the sorts of sounds used by e.g. United States of America (band) and others from around the same time, if I hadn't read those comments I would've assumed it was simply a different version with a different lineup... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:46, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
If no reliable sources can be found to support it, I guess there's not much to do about it... But keep on the lookout! FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • All terms linked in the intro should also be linked in the article body.
  • Seems the intro could be beefed up a bit. You don't mention the criticism of not crediting the artists etc.
    •  Y Well, I didn't mention the criticism because I believe it's only in one of the sources (and that source mentioned in another). I've incorporated it and think the lead reads better for it, though it's possible there's an WP:UNDUE claim that could be raised. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • Likewise "just before the Khmer Rouge" in the introduction is a bit esoteric for most readers. Explain what it is.
  • "a charcoal rubbing taken from Angkor Wat." Rather a rubbing from a photo of Angkor Wat? Perhaps specify a relief in Angkor Wat, and mention what the place is.
    • How can one tell what relief it comes from? I'm just going by this source. I don't have any reason to question it (it makes sense and looks similar to some images I've seen of the bas reliefs at Angkor Wat, but I don't know the best way to expand upon that). I'm not sure I follow re: rubbing from a photo. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
  • You could mention in both the intro and under production that all artists have apparently been identified in the meantime.
  • Since there now seems to be much more information available about the individual artists, I'd expect a bit more background about them, perhaps some examples of what happened to them? Did any survive, etc.? How popular was this genre back when the songs were originally released? I guess the documentary could be cited for information.
Looks good! As for Angkor Wat, you should at least add "temple" as presentation. Anyhow, I think I can pass now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply
@FunkMonk: Excellent! Thanks very much! And  Y re: Angkor Wat (edit). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ta to all

edit

Thank you, the reviewers and the authors, for this excellent article. I feel like travelling to Cambodia to check things out now. Zezen (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)Reply