Talk:Glee: The Music, Volume 1/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Novice7 (talk) 11:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reviewing in one or two days. Sorry for the delay. Novice7 | Talk 14:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! Here are some issues.

Lead

All non-bonus tracks from the album have been released as digital singles; the cast's debut single – maybe split and make two sentences?

Done Frickative 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Glee Live! In Concert! saw the cast tour the US in promotion of the album, among others" – change the arrangement of sentence. Maybe, something like "The cast promoted the album in US through a tour titled 'Glee Live! In Concert!'". And, what do you mean by "among others"?

I can answer that since I wrote it. :P I meant the tour wasn't only promoting Volume 1, but also the four other releases for the first season. I've reworded it a bit. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's good :) Earlier, it was not clear. Novice7 | Talk 06:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development

A comma after America in first sentence.

That could change reader interpretation a bit, though. I believe it's meant to say that FOX is the channel in which Glee debuted in the US. A comma could make it mean that the US is where Glee first aired, but I believe it was aired the same day in Canada, as well (though I may be wrong). Do you understand what I'm saying? Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. Yep.. You're right :D Novice7 | Talk 06:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and to release "the" accompanying

I think I worded the sentence that way originally as it's discussing Murphy's plans prior to any deals being struck - so "the accompanying soundtrack albums" would treat them as a definite, when at that point they were a possibility being pursued. I'm happy to change it if that's too awkward, though. Frickative 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice this comment before. Yep.. It's okay. Novice7 | Talk 04:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does signing with Columbia have to do with success?

It's a part of background and development of how the albums, and this debut one, came to be. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's my mistake, but I took it in a different way. When I read it, what I interpreted was "They signed with Columbia, because they felt that with Columbia they can be successful?" :"> Novice7 | Talk 06:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that not related to development of the album, though? Yves (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course it is. Novice7 | Talk 13:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stringer appreciated the series' use of both classic and contemporary pop music, and believes that other record labels underestimated the potential – rewrite.

I've split it into two sentences: "Stringer appreciated the series' use of both classic and contemporary pop music. He suggested that other record labels underestimated the potential..." - is that okay, or does it need further re-writing? Frickative 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just perfect! Novice7 | Talk 17:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Stringer was surprised" – doesn't quite fit.

Has been changed to "Stringer did not expect...", is that any better? Frickative 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Far better :) Novice7 | Talk 17:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Link encore.

Done. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

I suggest first Critical and then Commercial.

Done. That makes sense: reviewers usually get albums in advance and write reviews in time for their release, and peaks and sales figures come a week after release. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just the recent certification is enough. In this case, platinum. The present wording is confusing. Try, "The album was certified platinum by RIAA for sales or shipments of (copies) or more".

Done Frickative 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change 1.072 million to numerals.

That would make it more precise, though, and the source says "1.072 million", i.e. the number could be "1,071,999" and they could be rounding it up, so writing "1,072,000" would not be accurate per WP:ORDINAL. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I didn't check the source. So, it's okay :) Novice7 | Talk 06:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it still on the Billboard 200?

Yes, it is. Does that need to be stated? Sixty weeks does equal one year and several months. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let it stay. Weeks is better, I guess. Novice7 | Talk 06:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed for UK Import chart.

The source is at the end of the following sentence describing UK sales figures. It's not exactly a "UK Import chart"; it just means that there was high demand for the album before its British release, so imports caused it to chart on the UK Albums Chart. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Good Novice7 | Talk 06:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar issue in certifications.

Where exactly? I might be missing something, but I believe all certs are sourced. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops.. I meant, about the gold/platinum thing I mentioned earlier. Novice7 | Talk 06:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Frickative 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Telegraph's review, maybe reviewers name instead of "The Telegraph review"?

Done. Not sure how I came to miss that one out, actually! Frickative 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Never having seen.." – not needed.

Removed. Frickative 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After each quote, a reference is needed.

Done Frickative 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Dolan "of" Rolling Stone.

Done Frickative 06:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Singles

The releases made the Glee Cast only the tenth cast to be credited with entries on the Billboard Hot 100 in the chart's 51-year history. – it doesn't make it clear.

Sentence reworded. Yves (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First chart and then certification would be easier to understand.

Done. :) Yves (talk) 17:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing

Sources, maybe?

Sure, I tried to add a reference to Allmusic into the table, but it resulted in a spectacular coding failure, so I've moved it to a general reference at the bottom covering both the track list and personnel. Frickative 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

Good

Chart

"List of 2009 peak positions by chart" – remove this. We have already added "Chart (2009)".
Similar issues in other tables too.

Ha, I had a feeling the table captions were iffy. I was trying to follow this advice, but do you think all the column headers are intuitive enough to make captions redundant throughout? Frickative 06:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. Novice7 | Talk 06:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, but re-reading WP:ACCESS and the accompanying tutorial, it does seem to indicate that captions are necessary. I'll put some thought into how best to re-word them to combat redundancy. Frickative 06:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, according to WP:ACCESS, it is necessary. I have not seen it being widely used in album articles. Also, use "plainrowheaders" in the tables. Novice7 | Talk 07:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plainrowheaders done. Frickative 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then :) Novice7 | Talk 07:42, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release history

Show somewhere that DD is "digital download".

Done Frickative 10:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

Some online sources are italicized. Correct them.

Would it be better to italicize them in the "work" field, making the unitalicized, or "cheat" by attaching them to the beginning of the "publisher" field? The former gets undone by bots, but the latter goes against template documentation. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen both. I use work. As you wish. Novice7 | Talk 06:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Yves (talk) 17:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Billboard has been acquired by Prometheus Global Media. Not Nielsen Business.

Prometheus Global Media only acquired Billboard in December 2009, according to its Wikipedia article, so anything before that date would still have been published by Nielsen Business Media. I've changed the ones before this date. Yves (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay :) Novice7 | Talk 06:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very Good. On Hold. Novice7 | Talk 04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad you responded to my comments. This is what a real GA review should be like :) Novice7 | Talk 06:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for such a thorough review. This is the first music-related article I've contributed to significantly, and your suggestions on structural issues etc. will be very helpful in moving on to the other releases in the Glee Cast discography :) Frickative 07:26, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to help :) Novice7 | Talk 07:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

Can you include any photograph of the Glee cast? It's optional. Novice7 | Talk 13:31, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have wanted to add a photograph of the cast performing, perhaps on their tour, but we unfortunately don't have any pictures of that. I could add pictures of either Amber Riley or Lea Michele, whose vocal performances were widely praised, if you like. :) Yves (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can, of course. Don't Stop Believin' was a hit. Maybe Lea and Cory photographs??? There a quite a few on Flickr. Again, it's optional :) Novice7 | Talk 03:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All issues fixed. Very good article. Passed Done Novice7 | Talk 03:56, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]