# Talk:Sign (Autechre album)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sign (Autechre album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: Beachweak (talk · contribs) 20:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: CarbonLollipop (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello, I'll review this. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 01:07, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


### Layout
The lead is quite short. You could add information like the genre, when it was recorded, and some more about what critics had to say about it.
I think the information about the artwork should be moved to—or at least included in—the Background section.
The Release section is also short. You could consider merging it into the Background section, and renaming that section "Background and release"
Some info about Autechre and their previous releases should be added; even a simple sentence along the lines of Autechre are an English electronic music duo formed in 1987, consisting of Rob Brown and Sean Booth. would be great here. When I read this section, it wasn't clear to me who Rob Brown and Sean Booth were.
Artwork information has been included and expanded in release section. Will work on the rest shortly. Rambley (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


### Prose
Take a look at MOS:TITLECAPS; track titles like "esc desc" should be "Esc Desc". This also applies to the Track listing section; footnotes may be added to show stylization.
Have changed the capitalisation in the track listing, will gradually work on fixing the capitalisation throughout the article. Rambley (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Just a thought; should capitalisation such as this apply? With titles that are actual English words in lowercase like that in Folklore, it makes sense. However, most of Autechre's songs have gibberish titles such as within this album. To give another example, Syro maintains the lowercase titles from the album. Just something to note, I'm not in favour of one way over the other. Rambley (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Things like Philip Sherburne of Pitchfork commented that the track "esc desc" was "slow and stately" look very off to me. So personally I'd prefer if it applied, especially in prose. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 00:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
That's fair. Albums such as Confield already use capitalisation so it would be nice to keep it consistent across albums. Rambley (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Background
Autechre recorded the tracks that ended up on Sign between 2018 and 2019, with production ultimately finishing and finished production in February 2020. This removes unnecessary wordiness, and fixes the WP:PLUSING structure.
Booth also stated that the duo didn't did not share tracks with each other for almost a year. MOS:N'T
Both Sign and its companion album Plus were teased prior to release through a series of live mix sessions on the streaming service Mixlr that took place during early 2020. → In early 2020, Sign and its companion album Plus were teased through a series of live mix sessions on the streaming service Mixlr. The streaming service doesn't seem to be particularly notable; this sentence could be improved even further by omitting its mention: In early 2020, Sign and its companion album Plus were teased through a series of live mix sessions.
The album was officially announced for release on 2 September 2020, where the cover art was also shared. → The album's release date and cover art were announced on 2 September 2020.
Prose has been changed accordingly. Rambley (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Composition
Simon Whight of Inverted Audio discussed tracks such as "F7", "th red a" and "gr4" and said they contained "brassy, glassy tones". Does it matter that he discussed them? Simon Whight of Inverted Audio said tracks such as "F7", "th red a" and "gr4" contained "brassy, glassy tones".
Sherburne also discussed Same issue here; it doesn't matter if a critic discussed something, the focus should be on what they are actually saying
Keating also commented that the duo "largely jettisoned the beats on Sign," but noting noted that they hadn't gone "fully ambient either" "haven't gone fully ambient either". Another MOS:N'T fix; here, we can quote the reviewer
Ollie Rankine of Loud and Quiet also discussed noted Sign's more melodic approach
Charlie Frame, writing for The Quietus, commented that "gr4" was "perhaps the prettiest track here" and that it "showcases see-sawing synths that keen like a string quartet". Link to synths
He also discussed said that "si007" among other tracks, writing that the track featured a dry kick that "always seems a micro-step ahead of itself, like feet tripping over themselves".


#### Release
Sign was officially released on 16 October 2020 on CD, 2xLP and digital services. The album was released through Warp Records. → Sign was officially released on 16 October 2020 through Warp Records on CD, 2xLP, and digital services. The rest of the article uses Oxford commas, add one here for consistency.


#### Critical reception
MusicOMH should start with a capital letter, both in the template and the reference
AllMusic doesn't need to be italicized
Writing about the album for The Quietus, Charlie Frame said that the album was called Sign a "welcome detour" and that Sign proves the duo felt it proved that Autechre "are in tune with their audience".
Joey Arnone of Under the Radar commented on the duo's ability to create "paradoxical soundscapes" and commented said that the tracks on Sign were Ideally, "commented on" should be replaced with a word that adds more information, like "criticized" or "praised"
He also discussed how the duo said that Autechre "continue to beguile and confound" and that called Sign was the duo's "most flat-out gorgeous album in ages".
@CarbonLollipop Hopefully all of these prose changes are now finished. I'll work on expanding the background section and lede, along with some expansion of the reception section. Rambley (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Added a background section too. Rambley (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks good, let me know when you're done making changes so I can continue with the review. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 00:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Just finished up - please carry on.  Rambley (talk) 01:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the slight delay. I have re-read, and aside from a few minor issues, it passes the prose-related criteria. I've also finished the source reliability assessment, with only one potentially problematic source. Once I do a spot check and media check I'll finish this review. Nice work! CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
No worries about the delay! I've went ahead and fixed the minor prose issues and removed that problematic source; I've replaced it with two new sources in the Composition section, as well as some expansion in the Recording section. Rambley (talk) 01:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)


### Re-review
like Confield, Quaristice and Exai Oxford comma here
such as Max; critics Semicolon should be a period here
concept of a studio albumed seemed "outdated" Typo
Paul Simpson commented that some tracks lacked form and weren't Contraction


### References
Will finish reviewing sources later.


#### Sources
Good:

Resident Advisor
Exclaim!
Pitchfork
The Guardian
Loud and Quiet
The Quietus
Consequence
Metacritic
Clash
Record Collector
The Independent
Music Radar
Under the Radar
Will take a look at later:

Metal
An interview, so OK
Beats Per Minute
Seems reliable, was also considered reliable in this discussion
Inverted Audio
Not sure, the site and author are unknown and I couldn't find any discussion. Since there are better sources available, I would remove this one.
The Vinyl Factory
Good, looks like they own Fact which is considered a reliable source
Substack (self published)
Good, also an interview
Treble
Looks fine, has an editorial board
Design Week
Also seems fine


### Scope
Relatively short for the amount of coverage on it, but it "addresses the main aspects of the topic" 


### Other
Stability, neutrality, and ref layout look good 


### Final comments
#### Spot check
3 
11
a, b 
c; he technically compared it to the song "known(1)" from Oversteps, and not the whole album 
Amended. Rambley (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
18
a, c 
b; I don't see a score anywhere 
Amended. This was likely an artifact from before I began article expansion. I've also added in some prose about the album being ranked on a list of 2020 AOTY's by The Quietus. Rambley (talk) 13:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
27 
30
I also noticed this with ref 32; it's not clear what these are citing 
Hopefully amended both sources? I've re-written the prose to give more understandable conclusions than before. Rambley (talk) 13:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)


#### Media review
Cover and audio sample look fine 


#### Result
@Rambley: I'll pass this once you address the issues I raised in the spot check. Nice work on this article. CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 03:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Issues have been amended. Thank you for the review! Rambley (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Okay, promoting now  CarbonLollipop talk┊contribs 05:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)