Talk:30 (album)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Generalissima (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Will review soon. Generalissima (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Generalissima. Did you get the chance to take a look?--N Ø 16:42, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Initial thoughts

Good article! Prose is of high quality, and I do not see anything suggesting a quick fail. I am not a pop music enthusiast, but this article gives me enough background context to appreciate what is notable about the album to begin with. Let's start this from the top.

Images

Adele_-_30.png:

Typical fair-use album cover. Correctly licensed as such.

Greg_Kurstin_studio_7053_Peter_Hill_(cropped).jpg, Max_Martin.jpg, Shellback2015.jpg:

CC images of producers for the album. All checks out here.

If there was a usable image of Adele during the production that'd be great, but for some reason famous people don't like licensing photos of themselves into creative commons. Tragic.

Yeah, it really sucks. I've been spacing out the Adele TFAs since they all have to run with the same image.--N Ø 14:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Lede

Good lede! I feel you could probably merge the top two paragraphs and the bottom two paragraphs of the lede, but that's entirely my personal preference there.

Background

Ah, someone who knows how to write a background section. Only really critique is that some word usage feels a little melodramatic ("journey of self-healing", "plagued"). I know this is the standard for the source material, but (as someone who mostly deals with very historical bios), feels slightly off in an encyclopedic context. Sourcing checks out. (I do not envy your task of digging through all these articles.)

Melodramatic just like Adele's music, lol. Jokes aside, I removed the "journey of self-healing" bit. I haven't faced any issues with "plagued" on the FACs for songs from this album, and I have now changed the wording here to be similar to that.--N Ø 14:38, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, looking at it with fresh eyes, plagued is fine here. Other corrections look good. Generalissima (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording

Why link Simon Konecki? It's not the first time he's mentioned in the article, and it just redirects to Adelle herself.

Otherwise, all seems good here.

Composition

Good use of quotebox. Don't see any problems here.

Release and promotion

Names of commercials are in quotations, not italics. Otherwise, looks good.

Critical reception

This needs a bit of work; it falls into an "A said B" situation. Might be useful to trim it down a little and consolidate points; WP:RECEPTION is absurdly helpful with this.

Thanks. Did some work on this and I too have found that essay really helpful in the past.--N Ø 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

All good.

Commercial performance

This section appears excessively long, with an undue weight on the raw numbers of sales and units over time. A lot of this information is already conveyed to the reader by the charts, and the rest can be summarized without giving a bunch of raw numbers (which aren't super useful without industry context). Look at your previous work, like your FA for Thank You; do this sort of summary style for these statistics, or else they lose a lot of their meaning to a casual reader.

I cut out a lot of raw numbers from this. Appreciate you using Thank You as an example (probably my best album article), but I think this album is just extremely more successful and it is not possible to get the section that small. I've only kept the really impressive records now, I believe.--N Ø 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact

See what I said on Critical reception; A lot of this would work just as a subsection of critical reception, if you wanted to consolidated it a little, since besides the vinyl bit, this just falls under a more general reception.

Done!--N Ø 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other sections

No prose here! Just good ol' stats and information. Obviously no complaints, and it's all heavily sourced.

Overall thoughts

Seems like an article in good shape, just needs a couple areas of touching up. I'm so sorry about taking so long on this. Thank you very much for your work so far. Generalissima (talk) 08:41, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Generalissima! Don't worry, you did not take too long at all. Seven days is standard. Greetings.--N Ø 10:05, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The revisions look really good and resolved the issues I had with the original article. Thank you very much for your work!

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Good job! :3 Generalissima (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.