Talk:Fuck It, We'll Do It Live/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't resist doing a GA review with this title!

Lead

• Do we really need the "see also"? I can't believe anyone wanting the general page on "Do it live" is going to type "Fuck it" into the search box first!
• The article is a little under 10K of prose - according to WP:LEADLENGTH, about two paragraphs should suffice. I would probably trim down the critical responses - they can go in the body (assuming they're all sourced correctly there) but I'd probably leave them out for the lead.
• "This was the first live album released by Wednesday 13." - the first sentence in the lead already says this, so it's kind of redundant
• "The Metal Forge praised the authentic quality of the production devoid of editing after the live recording." - might be easier to say "The Metal Forge praised the authentic quality of the production and the lack of editing"

Comments on the body later. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Inspiration

• I don't think "musician" is necessary on the picture here. Also, is this before his motorcycle accident?
• "inspired by a video clip featuring television personality Bill O'Reilly" - the source given bowdlerizes this as "F*@k It, We'll Do It Live". Is that at all official or just the magazine not being allowed to use that word?
• The quotation might sit better as a quote box further down the article, as it helps break up the text where there are few free images available (unless Commons has one of the Crocodile Rock). This makes this section smaller, but perhaps the general gist that Wednesday 13 felt inspired to improvise as he went along could be mentioned here instead.

Production

• "decided to expand the band from four to five members briefly" - suggest "decided to temporarily expand the band from four to five members"
• "recorded using six total cameras" - I don't think "total" is needed
• "Friday the 13th character Jason Voorhees made an appearance on-stage" - presumably this was just a roadie dressed up as him, or something like that? That might be worth clarifying in-case the reader mistakes this for an actual actor in the film series.

Post-production

• I think this section can probably be combined with "Production" above
• "Occasional off-tonal-notes" - what does this mean? Might it be simpler to say "mistakes" or "wrong notes"?

Release

• "The album was released on October 21, 2008. The release was timed to coincide with Halloween" - I think these two sentences can be combined
• Aside from the first mention, I'd drop the other "2008"s in this section as it's obvious from context which year it is
• "Wednesday 13 joined Michael Monroe of the group Hanoi Rocks" - suggest "Wednesday 13 joined Hanoi Rocks frontman Michael Monroe"

Reception

• "even some little touches of Indus" - Indus?
• What make Pennyblackmusic, Spirit of Rock and MrVinyl reliable source? (This isn't a dig, rather I'm just unsure as to their credentials)
• Some of the quotations, most obviously Global Domination are a little long and might invite accusations of close paraphrasing (particularly if I decide to, as I might well do, to take this to DYK)

Track listing

• Should say "All tracks written by Wednesday 13 unless otherwise stated" (or something similar) at the top of the list
• The "writers" field should list the writers, not the original bands the song came from. That information, though, would be worth putting as prose directly below the track listing.

See also

• I'm a little confused to how exactly these articles relate to this one - can you clarify this?

Summary

• There doesn't seem to be much stopping this article from reaching GA status, it's well written and informative about the subject (although, being a bit of a cynical old goat myself, would point out he's not really doing anything Screaming Lord Sutch wasn't having a go at in the 1960s). Some of the opinion pieces might be approached with caution under normal circumstances, but here they're only used explicitly for opinions, which is more acceptable. In the meantime, I'll put the review on hold pending resolution of these issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Response: Thanks very much for the well-thought-out and thorough review, Ritchie333. I've gone through and done my best to address your helpful recommendations. I've noted my responses in the edit summaries. I think the article looks a lot better now for it. Thanks again, — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've had a look through. I think the only outstanding point was creating a quotation box, and adding an image which is has been discussed on your talk. Neither of those is required as part of the GA criteria, so I'm happy to pass the review now. Good stuff. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)