Talk:Bleed American/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 05:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 (references): b (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, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Reviewer general comments

I will be reviewing this over the next week. Glanced over it, can probably complete it pretty quickly. Overall looks like it is in really good shape as is! Kees08 (talk) 05:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6a: Recommend using Template:Non-free use rationale album cover for this image Kees08 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Recommend removing See Also section, as the link there is already incorporated into the article.

You have a point that the link's already there, but I feel like it belongs there. I'll ask a close colleague to see what he thinks on this. @Yeepsi: Whaddaya think?

From what I've seen, if the link is already in the article then it won't need to be under a See Also section. (I didn't get a notification for the ping, weird.) Yeepsi (talk) 18:40, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done then.

Recommend removing less notable reviews, such as making a BuzzFeed list.

Done

Recommend finding more negative reviews, if possible, as the review section only had one negative review in it. (I understand this album is in general highly regarded, but surely there was more than one negative review)

And I also understand that there's one negative review, but I do have critical comments from reviews which weren't necessarily negative overall, but did have some negative criticisms inside them. See The Village Voice and Blender reviews.

Good enough for me. Kees08 (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend rewording this: "Soon after starting the recording sessions of Bleed American, the band met the head of DreamWorks Records Artists and repertoire division, who offered to help the band. The band considered it, but it was not until a year later when they returned to contact him."

Done

Third paragraph of Lyrical themes and musical style notes many different artists lines that were used in A Praise Chorus; the track listing section only mentions one of those bands. Solve that however you want. Kees08 (talk) 04:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Consider adding that Mark Trombino produced Dude Ranch and that it went platinum in the Recording section.

Done Incorported it in there minus the platinum part which would be trivial for this article.

Add lengths to tracks in bonus tracks.

Done

@DannyMusicEditor: That's it! Address citations, and at least respond to the points above. I do not expect you to agree with me on every point, just let me know if any of them are unreasonable. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08, I don't agree with all the tags you've added; citations are not necessary after every sentence (I learned that from a much more experienced editor than even me). They must be at least at the end of every paragraph, if it covers everything in there; if not, it's nice to cite a bit more. They can cover multiple sentences like I have here. Also, what clarity would you like on the booklet? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 21:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence isn't immediately clear to me. I assume it could mean that the songs were mixed (mastered?) at that location? I assume I am being daft, but if you could make it more clear that would be great. Your citations are good then. I wish Wikipedia had a better way of grouping information and citations together...as a reviewer sometimes it gets tough, because info in the paragraphs isn't necessarily in the citations, and it can be a pain to go through. Your case looks fine though. Let me know if anything else is unreasonable (I am working to be a better reviewer, only my third review, and all of them have involved you in some capacity). Kees08 (talk) 04:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: I believe all concerns are addressed. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]