Talk:GHV2/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 14:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@IndianBio: @11JORN: Grabbing this for a review. I will have my comments up by the end of the week.

Lead and infobox

• Image in the infobox needs an alt.
• Clarify “collection of songs from 1992 to 2001” to “collection of singles from 1992 to 2001”
• Change (who mentioned that she only wanted "songs that I could listen to five times in a row" included on it.) to (who mention she only included “songs that I could listen to five times in a row".) to make the sentence more direct and concise.
• Change “live home video” to “video album”. The term “home video” sounds odd to me and makes me think of something completely different than a live album of a concert.
• Change “although criticizing” to “although some criticized"
• Remove the “also” in front of successful.

Background and release

• Image needs an alt.
• Do you have a source for the sentence about the unreleased song being from a Ray of Light recording session with William Orbit? If so, I would add it here. (This is not a major complaint as it is fine as it currently stands, but it is always better to play it safe). Same goes for the speculation about the title being The Immaculate Collection Vol. 2. It is always better to source anything that may sound speculative. Again, this is merely a suggestion.
• I would include the date of Swept Away’s release after the title: (2002)
• Really great and informative section, great job with all the research and time put into it!

Release and promotion

• Another great section; I can’t find anything to improve on here. Really strong research!

Critical reception

• I have a couple issues with the sentence about the AllMusic review. To me, Erlewine is giving a mixed review of the album so it is a little strange to transition from the topic sentence saying the album received generally positive reviews into a mixed review. I would also encourage you to use the quote in a more thoughtful way rather than just using it in its entirety. While it is a great quote, not all of it is necessary for this section. I would rephrase it to the following and move it to the last paragraph where there are other mixed reviews: (AllMusic writer Stephen Thomas Erlewine praised the singles included on the completion, but was critical of the tracklisting, describing it as “tossed together" and "less than the sum of its parts".)
• Other than that point, a really great section overall.

Commercial performance

• Image needs an alt. and should presented as “upright”
• Change “Every Madonna album had since debuted at top six, until GHV2.” To “Every Madonna album had debuted in the top six until GHV2.”
• Change “overtakes” to “overtaking” and remove the comma after “650,000”

Track listing

• Great job here, but put the total length for both tracklistings (the GHV2 one and the Remixed one)

Personnel

• Add a personnel section that lists the credits from the album. This can be obtained either directly from the album or from credible websites like AllMusic, but this is required for a GA.

Charts

• Excellent work here!

Certifications

• Again, great work here; I have nothing else to add to this section.

References

• Great job here as well; while not required for the GAN, I would encourage you to archive all the links to avoid dead/broken links in the future.

Final comments

• @IndianBio: @11JORN: This article is very close to being a GA. Once all of my comments are addressed, it should be passed relatively quickly and easily. Let me know if you have any questions or comments about my review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: all  Done Alex ^talk 03:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
    • @11JORN: Great work with this article. It is a very well-written and informative article and I enjoyed reading and reviewing it. I look forward to possible reviewing more of your articles in the future. ✓ Pass

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: