# Talk:Heaven Up Here

I considered this article for a review. Comments coming soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments
The first sentence that should define what Heaven Up Here is too detailed. It could be chopped down by putting a full period after the band's name, then proceed on the release information.
as the follow-up to "their"…
Used "the band's" instead to give context.
"first Top 10 release when it reached #10" somewhat awkward.
Changed structure slightly. A bit better but still not fantastic.
Suggestion: avoid using # signs; it's less readable.
Foray is not the proper word.
Remove "the lower reaches of"; it's redundant.
Billboard should be in italics.
Heaven Up Here released the single…
Delink produced.
Aside from being a producer, who is Hugh Jones and The Bunnymen? American? Australian?
FA class album articles such as Be Here Now (album) and Californication (album) don't have any more context here. The Bunnymen is short-hand for "Echo & the Bunnymen" so I've replaced it with "the band" also changed to co-produced by to make it clearer they are two separate entities.
South Wales… The infobox only states Wales. Which is the correct place?
They're both correct, South Wales is an area of Wales. But I've changed all references to Wales to avoid confusion.
"A generally well received album" is vague. Who received it positively? Critics?
"The album has also been listed in Rolling Stone magazine's list of the 500 greatest albums of all time." What rank specifically?
Like 500 greatest albums of all time
So would I, but I assume you meant "link" ;-)
Yah. its link. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be better to use debut album than first album, and link it.
I've changed to "debut", but I'm not sure what you want me to link: The debut album itself is already linked after the comma
debut album. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The word interest is being used twice in the sentence.
"After the public and press interest garnered from Echo & the Bunnymen's first album, Crocodiles, the band released the Shine So Hard EP which maintained that interest." This must have direct inline citation.
Who is Bill Drummond? And David Balfe?
"who had produced Crocodiles" immediately follows their names.
who engineered Crocodiles and co-produced…
Who is Hugh Jones?
"who engineered Crocodiles and co-produced Shine So Hard with Drummond, was brought in to produce the album" immediately follows his name.
What is the significance of this: Jones would later go on to produce the band's 2005 album Siberia.
It provides information about Jones and his involvement with the band.
What is the relevance of the second para to the preceding one (in the Background section).
Changed section title to "Background and recording".
Is McCulloch the lead singer? If yes, change singer to lead singer.
The Velvet Undergrounds must be indentified.
Add a comma after "in the same liner notes"
Links to Ministry of Liverpool?
There aren't any
Needs direct source: "In the same liner notes bassist Les Pattinson said that the band could be lazy and so had hired rehearsal space at the Ministry in Liverpool. He said this made them work harder and develop "language" in the rhythm. Guitarist Will Sergeant said that McCulloch would say that it was his [Sergeant's] album because he was bossy and a control freak."
The photography and album cover information in the releases section is irrelevant. Is is also re-mention to the section cover which is more an appropriate place.
Overlinking of remastered and reissued.
Remove spaces before and after the em dashes.
Replaced with spaced en dashes which are also acceptable WP:DASH
"Broke My Neck (Long Version)" is…
"Broke My Neck (Long Version)" was the B-side of the 12-inch single "A Promise" — an edited version was used as the B-side of the 7-inch single — and was recorded at Tistedal Studios in Norway on 7 June 1981. Its like the song was pressed first as a B-Side then it was recorded.
Commas are incorrectly place in this sentence: The reissued album was produced by, music historian, Andy Zax and, producer, Bill Inglot.
All charts and lists are idea put after the prose.
Merge the short subsection called single to its mother section.
Remove which was…
Moderate success if a point of view.
Add comma after "later that year".
Remove commas before and after photographer and do not link it.
Who is The Treble e-zine?
This has not use: The back cover of the album also shows the track listing. The dust sleeve of the record showed a black and white photograph of the band on one side and the album credits on the other.
The original album's cover art was designed by...
Who is Martyn Atkins?
All I can be sure of is that he designed the cover.
What I mean is to give context rather than just designer. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The apostrophe and the s in New Musical Express's should not be in italics.
Who is Rachel Gutek and what is guppyart?
Full period after music press and critics.
Who is the reviewer of Losing Today magazine.? A name must be indicated or at least say a reviewer or a writer.
Period after "at the height of their powers" and should be sourced directly; it's a quote.
Combined with the first and second quotes so only one citation needed.
Integrate the negative review; are there any available reviews which are nega?
The only negative review that I can find is the Robert Chistgau one in the article.
Remove the chart, only two entries. It would be better to write it in prose.
That's all for now. Let's see the effect if these all are addressed or given proper objections. I'll put the article on hold and will pass or fail if the article failed to meet GA. You may drop me a message for concerns. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a number of changes as suggested above: the ones which have been struck out I believe I have dealt with. The ones that haven't been struck out I've given my reasons above for why not. Thanks for your help. --JD554 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I've removed references repeated on adjacent sentences. Even for FAs, repeated refs are considered unnecessary, unless citing direct quotations. Many FAs have paragraphs that just have one cite for the entire para. In this article esp. the info is largely uncontroversial too, so frequent refs aren't warranted. indopug (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. Cheers --JD554 (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
A couple of comments before closing the GAN
This is mostly good, but

does that table in the middle of the page need to be there? Every even-moderately successful album gets re-released a number of times, so listing them here is not really required. Further, it really hampers readability and the flow of the prose.
Removed.
Don't link to Rocklistmusic.com; since it lists entire Best-of lists from magazines, it commits copy-vio. Just link to the magazine itself without mentioning Rocklists.
Removed the links for the NME greatest lists, still trying to find a new source for the 1981 NME poll winners.
That's all done now - new source for NME awards added.
Treblezine.com and Losing Today are not reliable sources.
Removed
Allmusic wrote the review about fifteen years after the record was released yet the article reads as though it was a contemporary review.
Fixed
Move the Cover section to before Releases. (Release and Reception flow better when one follows the other)
Done
"the band released the Shine So Hard EP which maintained it"--unclear.
Clarified
"Although following musical differences between the band...was brought in to produce the album."--uh what? Rephrase please
Done (hopefully better!)
"Keeping with the cold and dark mood of the album,"--i don't believe you have said before that it was cold and dark. Are you sure there isn't enough information in the liner notes or any of the reviews, of the kind of music in the album to warrant a Musical style/Themes section?
Removed that lead in to the sentence. I've not seen enough to be able to create a style/theme section.
That's pretty much it. Once your done I'll give a copy-edit and it should be good to go. indopug (talk) 15:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Done almost everything. I've still to find a new source for the NME awards. Will hopefully complete this soon. --JD554 (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Much better. And w00t. You never know what the nice folks at Google have previewed for us :) indopug (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
This is near to GA. Thanks to indopug. We'll wait his ce before any move. --Efe (talk) 03:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
That source is good! --Efe (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately when I try to look at the page on google books that Indopug linked to above I get the message "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book." I don't suppose anybody knows the page number of the book so I can use it as the cite (assuming it mentions the two awards there). --JD554 (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Never mind it's started working for me now! --JD554 (talk) 09:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think I've covered everything suggested by Efe and Indopug above now (with their help - many thanks!). --JD554 (talk) 10:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
One more thing: with that source you have plenty of info to add a Music and themes section. It is mandatory because the Music is arguably the most important section of an album article, and this article doesn't really give an idea of the dark sound the album has. Also it is need for GA criteria #3a "It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it addresses the major aspects of the topic". Nothing major, just a paragraph or so touching upon the main themes and styles of the music. indopug (talk) 10:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Added a 'Music' section. I just need to sort out the references to Max Bell's liner notes when I get my hands on them again, so I can sort out what came from what page. --JD554 (talk) 14:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And now they're all done too. --JD554 (talk) 05:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Passed. --Efe (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Heaven Up Here. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090219125614/http://www.pitchforkmedia.com:80/article/record_review/17359-crocodiles-heaven-up-here-porcupine-ocean-rain-echo-the-bunnymen to http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/17359-crocodiles-heaven-up-here-porcupine-ocean-rain-echo-the-bunnymen
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heaven Up Here/CommentsTalk:Heaven Up Here/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
Last edited at 04:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC).
Substituted at 17:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)