# Talk:Tomorrow's Modern Boxes

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tomorrow's Modern Boxes/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Decent album, and this looks like a nicely presented article - looking forward to reviewing this one. — sparklism  hey! 18:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The tables turn! Excellent. Popcornduff (talk) 18:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)


### Initial thoughts
I've worked with Popcornduff before, so I already know this will be a well written and presented article (plus, I've had this on my watch list for some time). Now that I've come to review it and take a closer look though, I'm struck by the fact that the article seems to dive right in to the content of the album, without any mention of the background or recording of it. 
I'm not suggesting that every GA-album article needs a 'Background' and 'Recording' section, but I do think that in the spirit of WP:GACR#3 ("A Good Article is...broad in its coverage") that this article is a little bit light in that respect. Is there enough decent information around to include something that covers this off, or at least serve as a sort of introduction before the article gets down to the content of the album? (I'm thinking that Radiohead and Yorke are pretty well documented, so there must be something usable out there.)  — sparklism  hey! 20:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean to say my wonderful article isn't perfect first time?! This is an outrage!
... but seriously, um, no, there actually isn't anything - and believe me, I'd know. Radiohead and Yorke are huge names, but the number of interviews they've done since 2007 has dropped massively - to the extent that they didn't do any interviews for their last album until about a year after it came out. Other than a handful of promotional tweets, and the press release quoted in the article, Yorke hasn't said a word about Tomorrow's Modern Boxes - nada, zip. Much to my own disappointment as a fan, we don't know anything about how he made it or why. Popcornduff (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
... but we do know that it was the first Yorke release since Amok, and the first to bear his real name since that Modeselektor track (unless you count this), don't we? — sparklism  hey! 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We do know that, but what are you suggesting exactly? That information alone doesn't constitute a Background section, to my mind - like, just list things Yorke worked on previously? Popcornduff (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've had a little think about this. So, as you say, "we don't know anything about how he made it or why", which definitely rules out a 'recording' section. But, we still know what came before (as mentioned above), and the article already talks about how some of the music was used in the Polyfauna app, before the surprise announcement of the album. If I recall correctly, there was also a little teaser a few days before the album announcement (which I don't think is currently mentioned in the article).
So, if we add that all up: Amok/other stuff + Polyfauna + white label teaser + surprise announcement & release - do we have enough there to write a one paragraph introduction before we talk about the music? Or, since all we ever knew about the album was the release, should we just have the 'Release' section first? (It could be argued that the method of release is more remarkable than the music). What do you think? — sparklism  hey! 21:49, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Good points. I'll have a go at adding a Background section tonight. I think you're right that the release is the most notable thing from an encyclopaedic perspective, btw. Popcornduff (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've done a bit of surgery. I added the Tumblr detail and some more subheadings, and moved the commercial stuff to the Reception section. I opted not to add a Background section, as the Polyfauna + Tumblr information didn't feel like background information to me - it's stuff that happened after the record was made, but before it was released. I'm also not sure if the "Pre-release" and "Announcement" subheadings even make sense.
I also haven't mentioned the previous solo work or Amok, because try as I might I can't find a way to make it relevant. The best I could do is write something like "Yorke released an album with Atoms for Peace, Amok, on such-and-such date. After the Amok tour, Yorke... uh, went home and recorded a new album, I assume." Do you see what I mean? Basically, I'm not sure if I've solved your problem at all. Popcornduff (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yep! I like it, since it provides an introduction of sorts this way around. I'll post a more detailed review later. Thanks! — sparklism  hey! 13:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


### Images
The images look good and add interest to the article. Two of them (album artwork and Brain in a Bottle music video) are tagged as needing fair use rationale, though. I'm not an image expert, so this may well just be a requirement to set the relevant parameter to 'yes' in the template - can you check these are OK? — sparklism  hey! 15:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I always manage to screw copyright stuff up somehow. I'll check it out. Popcornduff (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
OK, I'm gonna hold my hands up and say I'm stumped. I don't see what I need to add to the rationale. Can you take a look? Popcornduff (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've no idea about this kind of thing, so I've posted a question over at WP:IMAGEHELP. Let's see what they come up with. — sparklism  hey! 19:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Somebody has posted a response there now. I've added the correct template to the album cover, so this should be fine now. Did you see the comment about the Brian in a Bottle image? — sparklism  hey! 08:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. It's not essential and the video received no special coverage, so I'll remove it. Popcornduff (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Cool. — sparklism  hey! 08:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


### Release
Should we provide a link for the word 'app' (perhaps to here or here), since not all readers will be familiar with what an app is?
 Done Good idea. Popcornduff (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"Yorke posted a photo of an unidentified record on Tumblr" - a (white) vinyl record? Although it's reasonably clear in this context, the word 'record' can have many meanings.
 Done Popcornduff (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There's a mix of tenses in the prose in this section, e.g. "It was released the same day" and "It is the first album to use", "Tomorrow's Modern Boxes was released in MP3 and FLAC formats" and "It has not received a retail release". You're a great copy editor, so I'll leave it to you to decide what's correct here.
 Done Bit of an embarrassing slip there! Popcornduff (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm slightly confused about the price of buying the album, which is listed here as US$6 (£3.69) and later as £3.86 - was there a different price for the Bandcamp release?
Yep, different price. Popcornduff (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
"It has not received a retail release" is uncited, which is not a good way to end a section in a GA article. Also, "retail release" is unclear - I can buy it, right? So does this mean that it has not received a physical release that I can buy in a traditional shop?
Yeah, I'm conscious of this. I'm never completely sure about whether you need to cite negative claims. The information that it hasn't had a physical release is basically inferred by the rest of the information, so does it need to be cited? Probably. If so, just delete it. Popcornduff (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I see you've deleted it - probably the right thing to do. — sparklism  hey! 20:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)


### Reception
"...over a million times in six days" - which six days were these?
 Done
"generally favorable reviews" - should we use the British 'favourable' here, since it's a British album?
 Not done I don't think so - because it's a quote from an American source. Popcornduff (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
You're correct - I just looked this up at WP:ARTCON. — sparklism  hey! 21:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I've changed Allmusic to AllMusic - hope that's OK.
Yep, good spot. Popcornduff (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple of repeat links in this section (Slant magazine and The Guardian - they're linked earlier).
 Done Popcornduff (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Colin Greenwood doesn't need linking in the track listing section, either (unless you're also going to link Yorke there too)
I'm confused; Yorke is linked there too. Popcornduff (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha! Yes, you're right - I know why I wrote this, but it's too boring to explain. The links are fine. — sparklism  hey! 08:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


### Lead
The lead mentions "artwork by Radiohead artist Stanley Donwood", but this isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article (except the credits) - could this be mentioned in the body of the article? (and is he commonly referred to as "Radio artist Stanley Donwood"?)
 Done Good point, mentioned him in the body. Radio artist Stanley Donwood? Huh? Popcornduff (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, typo. I meant to say: is he commonly referred to as "Radiohead artist Stanley Donwood" (ass opposed to just plain old "Stanley Donwood")? — sparklism  hey! 14:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ah, right. He is referred to as "Radiohead artist Stanley Donwood" - Google the term and see the number of headlines using it - as that's overwhelmingly what he's known for. I don't feel strongly about it though, so I've removed it for now. Popcornduff (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2015 (UTC)


### Summary
This is a pretty decent article as it stands, with only a few minor points to address at present. I haven't checked out all the references yet - more later! Thanks — sparklism  hey! 15:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

All of the points above have been addressed, and I can't see any other issues. I'm happy to promote this to GA status - well done! — sparklism  hey! 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel as though describing the album as "electronic" isn't quite very accurate. Perhaps a description as IDM would be more appropriate, as this genre description both matches the content of the album as well as being a popular term applied to it? Moonwater21 (talk) 11:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources stating different genres, we can add them to the article. Popcornduff (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Jimmio78, I'm a bit unsure about some of the changes to album credits you've been making on this and other Radiohead articles.
You're right, the TMB liner notes don't explicitly credit anyone for writing. However, Yorke is credited for "music" (which surely implies writing) and Godrich is only credited for "production and editing". I'm wary, therefore, of using other sources to credit Godrich for writing when the album liner notes don't.
How reliable are streaming sources considered to be? Genuine question, I don't know the answer. I like using liner notes when possible because they're "canonical", at least. Popcornduff (talk) 12:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

@Jimmio78: You're still making these edits. Can you respond to this discussion, please? Popcornduff (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: Either only Yorke should be credited (due to the music by Yorke credit) or Yorke, Godrich and Colin Greenwood. The liner notes don’t explicitly credit Greenwood with writing either. Streaming service credits are provided by the record label and are a reliable source, especially when liner notes are confusing or unclear.
Isn't the safest method to use the liner notes? ie just credit Yorke for music and vocals and Godrich for production and editing, as the liner notes do. Why fudge it with multiple sources? Popcornduff (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
That's fair enough. But then we must also remove Colin Greenwood's writing credit. Jimmio78 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Popcornduff (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2018 (UTC)