# Talk:...I Care Because You Do

There is a disagreement on whether or not to include James as the producer in the infobox. Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, "Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication. Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context. In short, stick to the sources." I don't doubt he produced it, but I don't think we should label things explicitly that are not explicitly stated. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

How are you misinterpreting "Everything by Richard D. James"? "Everything" on a record naturally includes production. You are being a stickler over WP:STICKTOSOURCE—this clearly does not fall under it because it is already in the source by its stating "everything". He is well known as an electronic music producer; you are not exercising common sense here. It's stated multiple times in reviews of the record that he produced it. Look, here's a primary source like the record itself: a licensed download of his record on Beatport credits him as the producer. I don't think they'd get the credits for a licensed download wrong. If you can't take "everything" on the album itself as proof he produced it, then I suppose you think nothing else, no critics' reviews or things not from James himself will do, and we can't ever have the producer field filled with his damn name. I don't need to be pinged because I'm not doing a back-and-forth with an editor who's not exercising common sense. This is entirely ridiculous. Ss112 21:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm ok with sourcing the sleeve, but it should probably be credited to Richard D. James, not Aphex Twin as that's what the credits says. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Great, then it should be re-added to the article by whoever. Also, every song on the album on Spotify, when "Show Credits" is clicked, says "Produced by Richard D. James". That's another source that is considered acceptable. Ss112 21:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The infobox is supposed to represent content in the article. The credits section does that well enough. I think we are good.Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Before anyone picks this up for GAN, I'd like to clarify that I've found absolutely no other information about the album's recording at all. I checked WP:LIBRARY, nothing. Google Books, nothing either. Yes, I did check news articles, but I didn't find anything. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 00:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm honestly not surprised though, because James has a history of being secretive with his work process most of the time. — 🌙Eclipse (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:...I Care Because You Do/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: 222emilia222 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Background section could lead better into Composition section. Right now it almost reads more as a Biography excerpt than the context for this specific album. The end should preferrably set up ... I Care Because You Do. Minor gripe, no reason not to pass :)
Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 
Again, Background section is somewhat disconnected from the articles subject matter. No reason not to pass, but should be improved upon :)
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 
Honestly, could be more! I imagine examplary photos of the analogue gear James used would be very fitting. Album cover is of course fair use!
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
no caption needed, as it's an album artwork
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Some minor areas that could be improved in the future, but all in all a very well written article! Great use of inline citations and quotes. I would recommend citing the authors of the articles that are being quoted more often and not just saying "Spin wrote that..." (Instead writing "Reviewing the album for Spin magazine, Will Hermes wrote that..." but it's completely fine, just a quick minor feedback note! :))