Talk:Forever Howlong

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Pitchfork feature

[edit]

Once the album comes out and we start getting more in-depth reviews and commentary about the album, allowing for more article expansion, I think this Pitchfork feature can be used a lot more throughout in order to give more context. Food for thought. Rambley (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Release

[edit]

@Rambley: Would you like to do the prose for the reception section or would you like me to work on it? I think we're both editing it at the same time and I don't want one of our work to be wasted :D Also, the album is out in New Zealand (if you VPN there or something you can listen to it a bit earlier). Justiyaya 14:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note about New Zealand, I didn't know that!! I'll let you start the prose for the Reception section if you'd like, I can come in later and do some touch up or write about any later reviews that come out :) Rambley (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambley I think I got most of it. It's probably far from perfect and I'd love a copy edit. (you seem much better at writing than me) Have a great day! Justiyaya 15:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Composition

[edit]

Don't know how many people watch this talk page, but hi. I would like to start expanding the Music section with actual notes about the composition of each track. I will start it in the morning as it's quite late over here but if someone else wants to start it or help me expand it later, it would be greatly appreciated. Rambley (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fun! I would certainly help out if I find the time. Justiyaya 08:09, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambley That was a big one :D well done! Justiyaya 16:37, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do you think an image of the band touring the songs could be helpful? There's been sources saying that they toured the songs extensively before release, which might be a nice caption. Justiyaya 16:39, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words If you can find an image of them touring the songs on Commons then by all means add it in. There is an image of them in 2023 in the Release section, but I have no idea if they performed them at that show. If all else fails, I plan to see them live in September and have no issues taking some photos for this article. Rambley (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rambley Oop I didn't see that image. I was also trying to look for one with them with new instruments but couldn't locate one with a good license. I'm going to try to ask for one from a youtube recording or something, taking a picture would also work, have fun! Justiyaya 16:53, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

[edit]

Im not really used to seeing more than 10 reviews in the critical reception box 182.53.106.208 (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GA review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Forever Howlong/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Rambley (talk · contribs) 00:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk · contribs) 21:16, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]


GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    in a lot of instances the sentences are written confusingly, or without as much of an encyclopedic tone - e.g, take this sentence from the "Production" section: "...the band had no set direction to move in; instead, they randomly went in different directions to see what they enjoyed." It's written more like an interview or biography. I recommend either finding a way to directly integrate the quote, or moving it to later in the section, starting with something else.
First of all, thank you for picking up this review! I do have to agree that some of the prose is quite clunky. If you'd be able to point out some examples where you think the text is the most confusing, I'll be happy to re-write it into something more readable. Rambley (talk / contribs) 21:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Production of the album began directionless before a cohesive sound was gradually decided. Longevity of the album's songs when playing them live was a key focus during production." - I don't think this deserves 2 full sentences in the lead; in fact; I think it would be better to exclude it completely - the actual article doesn't go into much detail(giving it UNDUE weight or importance) of this too.
"The album was released to critical acclaim, and was preceded by three singles: "Besties", "Happy Birthday" and "For the Cold Country". Critics described the album as more accessible and uplifting in contrast to their previous albums." - What does the 3 singles have to do with the critical acclaim the album received? Moving this to earlier in the lead would be a great service.
""Happy Birthday", the second single from the album, is made up of layered brass arrangements." - This and a lot of the other details of the songs are really unnecessary. If you're going to describe each song, "layered brass arrangements" is not nearly descriptive enough to make it actually useful to a reader. I'd recommend removing, or vastly improving these descriptions. It's not enough detail to be useful, and just enough detail to be clutter. * This applies for much of the Composition and lyrics section.
""For the Cold Country", the album's last single, was described by Clash critic Cal Cashin as "a Medievalist saga" that contained complex sections and elements of post-rock.[18] Its orchestral crescendo was described by Vázquez as "a feverish jam session caught on fire".[15] Richards noted the "squealing horns" of its outro being reminiscent of Ants from Up There.[12] According to Kershaw, it took two years to write the track, and that it was made from a lot of trial and error.[14] "Nancy Tries to Take the Night" was originally formed during the band's performances at Bush Hall,[14] and was described by Richards as a "six-minute-plus epic".[12] Its second-person lyrics explore the pressures of conforming to traditional expectations of female social respectability.[13] "Forever Howlong" is a slow-building track made up of only vocals and a recorder choir.[15][7] The track's lyrics discuss topics such as "beans, vitamin B, and microbiome pH".[15] The closer "Goodbye (Don't Tell Me)" was described by Cashin as featuring "twiddly guitar parts" and a Britpop-inspired chorus.[18] The song was regarded as quite old, and according to Ellery, it "probably would've been on Bush Hall if I'd had the time".[14]" - The words "was described" appears 4 times in this single paragraph; and as I've mentioned before(Though I understand trying to avoid no original research) it adds a lot of clutter. Either just cite the source directly, or move the critic's reviews to Critical reception and remove the song descriptions.
"Our Culture writer Konstantinos Pappis wrote that "Forever Howlong manages to paint the deepest conflicts over a lovely, delightful musical canvas".[36] Pappis also called Black Country, New Road a "resilient group"." should probably get converted to "Our Culture writer Konstantinos Pappis wrote that "Forever Howlong manages to paint the deepest conflicts over a lovely, delightful musical canvas," also calling Black Country, New Road a "resilient group"." - 2nd sentence is too short
I understand the effort put into the Composition and lyrics section but I think it's best for the article if we shelve it until we can go in in depth detail about each song, to make it actually useful to the reader. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 14:37, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Ants from Up There's composition and lyrics section is sufficiently detailed to offer actual insight. Monkeysmashingkeyboards (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
    a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    All of the sources I've checked are from reputable music outlets, or direct interviews - there are no copyvios either. There are sufficient citations for the length of the article.
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article has some irrelevant or unimportant details - e.g. "The track's lyrics discuss topics such as "beans, vitamin B, and microbiome pH"."(from Composition and Lyrics section, near the bottom) - I don't need this information, and it makes the reading experience much more cluttered. Otherwise, the article covers everything one could expect from an Encyclopedia. Props!
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Being an album by an artist, it's inherently going to be written mostly by fans or enjoyers of their work. But I can't read any obvious or hidden bias in this article, and it does address some criticisms of the album - it would be nice to read more negative opinions about the album, but being a BCNR album, there doesn't seem to be any!
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    No edit wars AFAIK
  5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Being an album there aren't many images needed, but looking at other GA albums, 2 images seem to be standard.
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    A good article for a GREAT album - some rough spots but solid overall. Address 3b and 1a, and it should be good.