Talk:Delicious Way/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Carbrera: I'd like to say the same for this one as Loveppears. Please try to get to it soon. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:54, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments:

Infobox/Lead

The alt description should probably state something else instead of "Mai Kuraki"; generally it uses "a woman" or something of that nature
How do you know it was recorded between '99 and '00?
"in selective tracks" --> What does this mean?
"whilst production" --> "while production"
"The album's background and development started in mid-to-late 1999 after the failure of her American debut single "Baby I Like"," --> This doesn't sound very neutral
"where her distribution label at the time East West Records and Giza Studio sent her back to Japan." --> "where East West Records and Giza Studio sent her back to Japan."
East West Records isn't mentioned in the infobox
", which sold over 1.3 million units in Japan," --> "(which sold over 1.3 million units in Japan)"
"an R&B album" --> "a R&B album"
"and soul" --> "and soul music"
"and several critics selected the singles as some of her greatest work." --> This statement sounds odd to me because it was her first album at the time, so the singles were really her only work to begin with

Done

Background and composition

"debut in that region, which later attributed to her debut" --> You use "debut" twice back-to-back
I'm a bit confused, the article for Giza Studio says it didn't have US offices until 2001 yet the info in this article calls for 1999/2000; so which is it?

They distributed the track under East West Records. If I'm thinking correctly. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference #4 does not back up this statement at all: "However, because it failed to chart on any Billboard chart there, Bip! Records, who signed Kuraki for North American distribution, dropped her and sent her back to Japan."
"Yoko Blaqstone. Stone" --> What does this mean? I'm assuming it's a mistake?
"To help compose the album's music included" --> Reword this please
"Simialrly" --> "Similarly"
"Majority" --> "A majority"
"Majority of the album's lyrics include small English language sentences, whilst the tracks "Baby Tonight (You & Me)", "Never Gonna Give You Up", and "Can't Get Enough (Gimme Your Love)" are English-prominent written tracks.[5]" --> This is unnecessary because the liner notes don't really prove this and it's more trivial than encyclopedic

Done

Release and promotion

"and Giza Inc." --> This isn't the same thing?
"near one million units in Japan, but became her" --> "nearly one million units in Japan, and became her"

Done The source of Itunes has them both so probably different, I have no idea. One could be like the branch who has several sub companies, one for music, movies, arts...

Reception and legacy

Ref #7 does not claim anything you wrote in this statement: "A staff member from CD Journal enjoyed the album, but pointed out "Stepping Out", "Can't Get Enough (Gimme Your Love)", "Everything's All Right", "Happy Days", and "Kimi to no Jikan" as the album's best tracks."
"eventually" --> This sounds awkward to me
Same here, Ref #20 lists Kuraki's singles, not her "greatest work": "Retrospectively, Alexey Eremenko, who contributed in writing the biography of Kuraki at AllMusic, highlighted the album songs "Delicious Way", "Love, Day After Tomorrow", "Never Gonna Give You Up", and "Secret of My Heart", as some of her greatest work."
"albums sales" --> "album's sales"
"were a milestone" --> "was a milestone"
"Arama Japan" is normal here, but italicized in the reference itself

Track listing

"All lyrics written by Mai Kuraki except track 5, 7 (co-written with Michael Africk) and track 6 (co-written with Yoko Blaqstone)." --> This needs a citation, even though the info in it may be pretty obvious to the reader.

Done

Release history

Please unlink Giza Studio

Done

References

"Amazon Japan" should not be italicized in any citation here
"iTunes Store" should not be italicized in any citation here
Ref #13 - Avoid SHOUTING in the title
Ref #18 - Avoid SHOUTING in the title
Ref #29 - Avoid SHOUTING in the title

Done

Final concerns

I'm a bit unsure where to head with this review. The problems in the "Reception and legacy" section seem quite large to me, as two of the three "reviews" do not back up the claims in the text. I'm pinging BlueMoonset in hopes to make a stronger decision regarding the evaluation of this article. Carbrera (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Reply to ping

If the nomination hadn't been made back in July 2016 and the review delayed another month and a half, I might be less inclined to recommend putting this on hold to see what could be accomplished in a week's time to address the very many issues raised, but because of that long wait—and the genuine possibility that a new submission might have to wait another half year—I'm going to suggest that it be put on hold for the standard seven days.

However, there is a great deal of work to be done, as Carbrera notes, and to my eye there's even more than has been mentioned above:

I was wondering about the use of a reviewer on Amazon.com, Mori Tomoyuki. Does Amazon in Japan reprint reviews by professional reviewers (in which case, why not use the original review source), or is this a customer review? If the latter, it's unusable in the article; even if it was commissioned by Amazon Japan, I'd be dubious about its neutrality and reliability because their business is to sell albums.
The lead has the following sentences, part of which Carbrera has questioned: Upon its release, the album received positive reviews from music critics. Many commended the composition and her songwriting, and several critics selected the singles as some of her greatest work. I don't see how "Many" can be used here since the body of the article doesn't back it up—I only see three reviews (two of which have been brought into question), which is "a few" or "some", not "many"; you'll need a larger and representative selection of reviews to justify "many". If you are going to use the "some of her greatest work", it needs to be in the context of a number of retrospective reviews covering more than just the first album. The phrase "the composition and her songwriting" reads a bit oddly as well.
In the Background and composition section, this was one of Cybersound's first records to assist outside of North America doesn't make sense; it needs to be rewritten.

There may well be other issues; assuming that these can be dealt with, the new and newly revised material addressing the above will need to be vetted. Best of luck. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, MarioSoulTruthFan, but it doesn't look done to me. Take the opening to the Reception and legacy section, which still reads Upon its release, Delicious Way received favorable reviews from most music critics. This is a very strong claim, yet it is unsourced. Furthermore, we have all of two reviews here, one of which is retrospective and thus not made at the time the album was released. There needs to be work done to find more reviews and sources to bolster the claims here. Right now, this is a very thin section, and does not meet GA standards. The final quote is quite odd, including the nonsensical statement but her first album has deemed itself as a classic—an album cannot "deem itself" anything at all. The statement should be dropped entirely (along with the rest of the quote) because it makes no sense. (If it is, instead, a bad translation, then a better one is needed if the quote is to be used.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I read it this way too. I'm assuming Mario was referring to just the issues that you brought up. Usually he pings me individually once he is done making changes. Carbrera (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I was, feel free to brought more issues. I'm still working on the ones brought by Carbrera. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: There are no other reviews available but those two. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, MarioSoulTruthFan, this is a major problem. As Carbrera points out, the Eremenko page of Kuraki's songs is a page entitled "Song Highlights", with no explanatory text. The highlighted songs total 25 out of 93. The claim that they are her "greatest work" is certainly not supported by this: they could be highlights for other reasons—unusual harmonies, special featured artist, or just better than the rest (without establishing any kind of quality level). This isn't a review at all. The other page I can't see, so I can't characterize it, but I'm quite leery given what was extrapolated from Eremenko. This is simply nowhere near enough to support the many claims throughout the article. Indeed, for my second bullet above, you only have that single review I can't see: how does that allow for "many" or even "several", or even the plural "critics"? The article needs a major overhaul wherever it talks about critics or reception in general terms. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even nominate it, as the nominator seems to be MYA I decided to help out with this. But honestly there is nothing I can do about these reviews. @Carbrera: you can fail the article. Not only there isn't much information available as the one there is is not great and can't support the claims. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 21:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Your thoughts on this? Carbrera (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Carbrera, my thoughts are that CaliforniaDreamsFan has edited on Wikipedia as recently as yesterday, and that you put this nomination on hold for a week on February 24. So it would be inappropriate to fail this article now without giving CaliforniaDreamsFan the full seven days to address the many issues raised. If they haven't been by the end of March 3, or good progress isn't being made, then failing it would be appropriate at that time. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: I really should have rephrased that. I meant what should be done with the two sources that don't adequately backup the information in the "Reception" section; should they be removed altogether? Carbrera (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Carbrera, thanks for clarifying. I think the AllMusic/Eremenko source should be dropped given what it's used for. It doesn't support the claim, so the related info should also be removed. (I checked, and there's no AllMusic review for this album.) For the CD Journal source, I can't judge it because I can't see it (I'm not willing to sign up to the site for this purpose), and it's also used in another place to describe the album in general, which makes sense if it's a typical CD review. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The user remains MIA and hasn't responded to the talk page notice regarding this GAR; this review has also been on hold for over 7 days. I encourage the user to nominate this article for a copyedit to address any further phrasing issues that were not pointed out above. I hope the nominator also is more careful next time when writing "Reception" sections so the sources cover all of what is being said. Please renominate this in the future when more things have been addressed. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]