Talk:Fever (Kylie Minogue album)/GA1

GA Review

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: User:Tuzapicabit (talk · contribs) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At first read, the article is well written and very well referenced. Paragraphs and sections are well spaced and laid out. Some points however:

A few minor problems in the lead: "The album was later released in the United States on 26 February 2002 and was Minogue's first album release in the region after her second studio album Enjoy Yourself (1989)." This doesn't quite make sense, does it mean it's her first album since rather than after?

Replaced "after" with "since". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Managed to peak at No.3"? Why managed? Surely it could just say it peaked at No.3.

Removed --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Release and Reception section: Re-introduced rather than introduced (in reference to the US market), and is territory the best word?

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many times the phrase "to date" is mentioned. To which date? As of 2013 perhaps? Perhaps "it is Minogue's highest-selling album" will suffice, and can be changed if the situation changes. Or a comination of both since saying as of 2013 so many times would be tedious.

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Impact and legacy section claims that "Can't Get You Out of My Head" is her biggest commercial breakthrough in the US, but the article has earlier said that it was her biggest hit since "The Locomotion".

It is her breakthrough because it got her back in business in the country. "The Locomotion" was her first single and performed well in the US, but later releases performed poorly. The Locomotion was a "hit", but CGYOMH was a "breakthrough". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance section is the most problematic. First entry to the chart and peak positions are fine, but why mention all the last week positions? This information isn't important at all. Also, the UK album charts consists of a top 75, but here lists it as a top 40 - which affects the amount of weeks on chart (as well as its final week's position). The ref given is an archive to the top 40 only. Either find a top 75 archive or mention that the info is limited to the top 40 only.

I've removed the last chart positions and as for the UK chart stuff, I mentioned that it spent "these many weeks" in the "top 40". --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel section could have some links (eg. Steve Anderson (musician))

Done --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The See also section seems superfluous

I've sorted it alphabetically now. Is that fine? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References need tweaking so that their formats match

I've done some tweaks. Are there any specific references which you think are not consistent? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other than these, which are all fairly minor points, the article is very well researched, written and thought out. The number of references is also impressive. Hope this review is of some help.

Thank you so much for the review and comments! Now I think it is time to close it (pass or fail?) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Pass. Well done.--Tuzapicabit (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2013 (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.