Talk:Doghouse (song)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead and infobox

For this part (for their independent second studio album), I think that “from” instead of “for” would be more appropriate.
For this part (to allow them funding and professional studio time), I believe that “provide” would be a stronger word choice rather than “allow”.
For this part (a 7" single for album tracks "Squeal" and “Doghouse”), I would remove “album tracks”, as that phrase implies to me that they are songs from an album that were never released as singles. Since both songs were promoted as singles, I do not think that descriptive phrase works in this context.
For this part (track on point with the other songs on), I would say something like “similar to” rather than “on point with”, as the current wording may be interpreted as leaning toward being too editorial for a Wikipedia article.
For this part (the female's wanting of control and dominance), I think that “desire for” would stronger word choice than “wanting of”.
I am not exactly sure what this sentence (Critically, "Doghouse" was deemed in desperate need of a tune-up by music journalist and author Jeff Apt.) means. Does he mean that song sounds out-dated? Too similar to the band’s previous work? It is a little too unclear in my opinion.

Background and recording

This part (Despite the underwhelming performance, the label refused to drop No Doubt from the label) reads rather awkwardly, particularly the repetition of “the label”. I think you could just drop “from the label” entirely as it is understood from the context of the sentence.
For this part (The group started recording their own songs from a makeshift recording studio), I would replace “recording” with “creating” to avoid the repetition of “record”.
For this part (the group's upcoming second studio album), I do not believe “upcoming” is necessary.

Composition and lyrics

For this sentence (It contains a progressive sound that author Jeff Apter considered a common sound within The Beacon Street Collection.), I would avoid the repetition of the word “sound”.
For this part (han the music in its predecessor,), I think “from” would be more appropriate than “in”.

Critical reception

There was only one review of the song? I am not surprised that it did not attract much critical commentary at the time of its release since it was an indie release, but there have not been any retrospective reviews?

Final comments

Great work with the article. I only have a few minor comments that need to be addressed, and then I will be more than happy to pass this. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 – I completed addressing your comments. From the major publications who have written reviews of The Beacon Street Collection, I have only found the one that mentions "Doghouse". However, I'm expecting a few more reviews to be published by next year, which will mark the 25th anniversary of the album and will likely be celebrated in a similar to how No Doubt (1992) was last year. Thank you for the review as always. Carbrera (talk) 00:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Verdict

Thank you for addressing everything. I will ✓ Pass this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]