Talk:Coltrane for Lovers/GA2

GA Review

I will start reviewing now. Updates will be posted soon I hope. So#Why ^{review me!} 08:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, a couple of things:

• The first review remarks "Can a Production section be added/expanded in the article?" - as far as I can see it, the History-section is today still more or less the same as it was on June 26th - why was that ignored?
• It is generally assumed that the clinching reason Coltrane signed with Impulse! was that it would enable him to work again with recording engineer Rudy Van Gelder, who had taped his Prestige sessions, as well as Blue Train. — This sentence is not as such supported by the source specified[1]. It needs a better source that this was really the reason why Coltrane signed with Impulse, the source only states that Van Gelder worked on the album "Blue Train", but nothing more.
• The next sentence, It was at Van Gelder's new studio in Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey that Coltrane would record most of his records for the label, including the recordings featured on Coltrane for Lovers., needs a source.
• I am uncomfortable with this sentence: Shortly after, Coltrane would return to a more experimental phase, releasing Impressions in 1963 and A Love Supreme in 1965, but it would be these recordings that would give John Coltrane a place in romantic jazz. — I think it sounds like an opinion and you should provide a source saying so.
• I do not think Amazon.com reviews is a reliable source for a claim like "[...] becoming one the most popular of Verve's For Lovers albums." There should be a source from the label confirming this claim.
• Fix this sentence please: Another Verve compilation of Coltrane ballads, entitled More Coltrane for Lovers, followed in 2005, which was also followed by a similar compilation, entitled Plays for Lovers, by Prestige in 2003. — An album released in 2003 cannot follow one released in 2005
• The "Charts"-section is not helpful in it's current state. I would suggest expansion with maybe charts in other countries to make it less US-biased or having it as 2-3 sentences so it just looks better. Expansion would be better though.
• Maybe add some more categories if it makes sense, "jazz albums" or such like. That's just a suggestion tho.

Well, that's all I could find for now. I will put it on hold now until this has been fixed. It looks good otherwise imho. Please write into my list above when you did fix something and if possible and not too tedious, do so with a editing diff (e.g. ":Fixed by adding source (diff)). So#Why ^{review me!} 09:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any more information on production. Dan56 (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, okay. I struck everything I think was fixed from my above list. I still think the Amazon.com-"source" needs to be replaced and the "Charts"-section expanded or reworded. SoWhy ^{review me!} 11:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the Amazon.com source, reworded the chart history section, and added another category. Dan56 (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Checklist

1. Well-written:

   (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; Y (as far as I can see) and

   (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Y (appears to be the case)

2. Verifiable with no original research:

   (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; Y

   (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); Y and

   (c) it contains no original research. Y (none I could find)

3. Broad in its coverage:

   (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; Y and

   (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Y

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Y
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Y (the main contributor could use the preview button more often to avoid unnecessary revisions but no content disputes)
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:

   (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; Y and

   (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Y

As far as I can judge it, this article now passes these criteria. Will promote it to GA. SoWhy 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)