Talk:Friends (The Beach Boys album)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]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.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: 100cellsman (talk · contribs) 17:59, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
I'll review this article soon. It'll be my first review. :)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
- My first concerns are the confidence ratings in the copyvio detector; reading 44, 48, and 63 percent. But it seems like for the most part, it's from song titles. I recommend paraphrasing quotations from reference 4, which has the 63 percentage.
- I'm nearly done with the review. My last major irk with the article is Brooklyn Vegan being used as a reference for the genres in the infobox. I'm not sure if it's reputable enough to cite genres.
- Ilovetopaint: I would like your input on this sometime soon. Otherwise, I'm failing the article within 7 days.
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- I'd do without that first Rolling Stone comment. It signifies favoritism and it doesn't contribute much to the technical aspects of the album.
- @Ilovetopaint, I apologize, I meant the comment in the critical reception section, talking about the first side being great. That section you modified was already fine. It bought me to my next point, the reviews by Robert Christgau, Penny Valentine, David Griffiths and Steven Gaines are in bad taste because they offer nothing but their own subjective opinion.
- Passing in agreement to the drive-by comment.
- @Ilovetopaint, I apologize, I meant the comment in the critical reception section, talking about the first side being great. That section you modified was already fine. It bought me to my next point, the reviews by Robert Christgau, Penny Valentine, David Griffiths and Steven Gaines are in bad taste because they offer nothing but their own subjective opinion.
- I'd do without that first Rolling Stone comment. It signifies favoritism and it doesn't contribute much to the technical aspects of the album.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- Most of the frequent edits are from expansions and cleanups to meet the criteria.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Not sure if the Maharishi image is totally free. I'd feel better if there was some sort of indicated approval of its use, or another image altogether.
- Looking again, maybe its just me since the image has been on wiki for quite awhile.
- Not a requirement, but perhaps you could add a sound-byte of one of the album's more exotic moments since they were elaborated a bit in the content section.
- Not sure if the Maharishi image is totally free. I'd feel better if there was some sort of indicated approval of its use, or another image altogether.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- You're good to go now!
- Pass/Fail:
Drive-by comment
[edit]100cellsman: I'm sorry but I think you're wrong that "the reviews by Robert Christgau, Penny Valentine, David Griffiths and Steven Gaines are in bad taste because they offer nothing but their own subjective opinion." Well, wrong if you're saying they should be removed from the article. Almost all music reviews are highly subjective and, too often, offer very little that's actually informative. It's often the case that in a highly favourable critique, the writer will expound on their points and give plenty of reasoning (because they're so enthralled by the subject), whereas the writer of a highly unfavourable review might be blunt and dismissive, and let their derision alone stand as a reflection of how unengaging they find the music. JG66 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- JG66That's a good piece of thought. I just meant the reviews are bad because of the way they're worded. For example "The MOST disappointing" or "...IS good/bad", unlike "PERHAPS the most" or "is ONE OF". I thought of this in a way that doesn't make the reader feel too influenced by or conflicted with strong opinions and let them listen to the album to form their own thoughts themselves.100cellsman (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Readers would want to know what Rolling Stone, Record Mirror, Disc & Echo, etc had to say about the album. We can't just leave them out because they didn't say anything substantial. The substance is in their disregard for the music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Right. (By the way, I'm still reviewing the article. I just went through a stressful life situation.)100cellsman (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Readers would want to know what Rolling Stone, Record Mirror, Disc & Echo, etc had to say about the album. We can't just leave them out because they didn't say anything substantial. The substance is in their disregard for the music.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- JG66That's a good piece of thought. I just meant the reviews are bad because of the way they're worded. For example "The MOST disappointing" or "...IS good/bad", unlike "PERHAPS the most" or "is ONE OF". I thought of this in a way that doesn't make the reader feel too influenced by or conflicted with strong opinions and let them listen to the album to form their own thoughts themselves.100cellsman (talk) 07:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)