Talk:For Emma, Forever Ago/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 10:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good at first glance - I'll take this one on. Expect my comments in the next few days. Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 10:50, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First look

OK, this already looks like a fantastic article (and it's inspired me to dig the album out again and give it a spin - still sounds great!).
I'm being super-picky here, but:

The album is referred to as both For Emma, Forever Ago and For Emma throughout the article. We should stick to one format, for consistency. I'd prefer to see the full title used throughout, especially as there is a track called "For Emma"
There are a handful of duplicate links in the 'Reception' & 'Touring' sections, which should be removed per WP:REPEATLINK
In the lead, He abandoned old songwriting methods... should say "He abandoned his old songwriting methods..", I think

Background

Mount Vernon, consisted of ten members and contained saxophonist Sara Jensen, who became his first love. They broke up in the middle of his college years, but would remain friends I know what this means, but it is slightly ambiguous - who broke up, Mount Vernon or Vernon & Jensen?
Should we wikilink Music theory, jazz and/or religious studies?
CD-R's → CD-Rs
After a bad match of online poker, he lost the money he had... doesn't quite scan right to me. How about something like "After losing the money he had at online poker..." or something similar?
Link Online poker?

Recording and production

a practice he had only just began doing that he learned from his father comes across as a bit wordy to me. How about the simpler "a practice that he had learned from his father"?
After three weeks, he grew tired of his.. I think the 'he' here should be Vernon
His further manipulated vocals with the software... → "He further manipulated his recorded vocals using the software..."
He later viewed the album a victory for his mental health - who did? ;)

Composition

a summation of his life events... → Vernon's life events, since we're in a new section
singers who employed the falsetto register, which inspired him to use his. - this doesn't quite end right for me, I think it should be "which inspired him to use his own something something" (not quite sure what right now)

Release

Kelly encouraged... - shouldn't this be "Crisp encouraged.."?
he asked to do a small solo set → "he asked to perform a small solo set"
Pitchfork is italicised these days, I think
a darling of blogs sounds a little too informal for a GA

Reception

It has a score of 88 → "It scored 88", otherwise the tense seems wrong (it's not likely to change scores now)
I kinda like the Accolades table, but I wish it were in some sort of order. As it stands, it's alphabetised down to Uncut, then unordered. Actually, I think this ought to be split into "Best of year" and "Best of decade", then alphabetised. And some entries are double-wikilinked

Touring

"UW–Eau Claire" should be explained (I know it was mentioned earlier, but not as an abbreviation)
PopMatters needs italics
In my British English, we'd say 'label-mates', I'm not sure if this is a typo or if 'label-mate' is correct in American English
His summer tour in 2009 hit various festivals feels too informal, how about "In summer 2009, the band played various festivals..."?

Summary

Like I said earlier, super-picky. This is a great article as it stands - I may post more when I've had chance to go through it again. Let me know what you think :) — sparklism ^hey! 21:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, thanks for all the great suggestions! Glad you liked the record too, it's an good one with a fascinating story and that's why I'm glad to help get it to GA. I've fixed most of the problems, aside from the accolades table, which should be completed sometime today. What's the current verdict on italicizing websites/blogs, such as PopMatters or Pitchfork? I see Pitchfork increasingly italicized, and I've implemented both of your suggestions, but I was always under the impression that as websites, not print publications, they weren't italicized. Anyway, thanks for the great review, should finish up today sometime. Let me know if there's anything else you see to improving. Thanks! Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 17:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the exact guidelines around italics - I just usually check to see how the site/publication in question is formatted in the lead section of it's Wiki article and follow that formatting. My preference would be to see them all in italics, since they're all titles of publications really, but that's a discussion for elsewhere.

You'll see I've made a few tweaks to the wording here and there; I hope they're okay with you. But there's a couple more things to clear up, I think:

In the background section, we've now got After losing the money he had at online poker, he lost the money he had, which he viewed as a microcosm for his other problems, which has a duplicated sentence. I think this needs a proper rework, but right now I can't think how :S
...oh, and I see those WP:REPEATLINKs could still do with removing (you might find that using the script at User:Ucucha/duplinks helps)

Article looking mighty good right now though! — sparklism ^hey! 18:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! This completely slipped my mind, so I apologize about the wait. I've fixed the WP:REPEATLINKs, some other things here and there, and edited that online poker sentence. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 18:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I'm happy to pass this one. Well done on a terrific article Saginaw-hitchhiker! — sparklism ^hey! 22:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]