Talk:Gravity the Seducer/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) 05:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this. Preliminary comment: Very little on the production. Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	~~See below~~ Good
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~See below~~ Good
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	~~See below~~ Good
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Good
	2c. it contains no original research.	Good
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	See below
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Good
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Good
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Within definition
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Good, only one image with strong fair-use rationale
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Image definitely fits, as it is the album cover
	7. Overall assessment.	Pending

Comments

1a

Infobox and lede not in synch: infobox says two singles, lede says three
- Reworded the lead to clarify; the third "single" is the inclusion of a song that had been a single from a previous album. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reception:

"... this score reflects the aggregation of twenty other reviews." - This reads poorly to me. Perhaps "... this score is an aggregate of twenty reviews." or something similar?
- Fixed. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charts:

Might want a link to Billboard
- Linked the first mention. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1b

I think having the release mixed in with production (and at the beginning of the section) doesn't work very well. Generally I try to keep the release with the reception, but after information on the production it may be acceptable.
- I've split this out a bit more, I had left it as one section because information was hard to come by and I felt smaller sections might not look great, but if you think it's better then I can leave it split out. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the band's home country is the UK, why list US charts first?
- I figured leading with the highest chart position would flow well, but I've rearranged it to mention the UK charts first if this makes more sense. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2a

Why the redlink to Simon Price?
- No idea, to be honest. It's gone now. GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3a

The lack of production info bugs me. Why not use
- http://www.ladytron.com/#about
- http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/pmb6/text.mp (four instrumentals)
  - I've made some use of the second link there, but I'm wary of using the first as the site updates without keeping archives (I had read it but felt that it would be a dead link/different page too soon to be useful). Would an archiving service like WebCite preserve the state of the page as it is? GRAPPLE X 23:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks (based on this revision)
- FN 4
  - 4a Verified, no close paraphrasing
  - 4b Verified, quote
- 11 verified (under a different name), no close paraphrasing
- FN 19
  - 19a Verified
  - 19b Verified, no close paraphrasing
- FN 27
  - 27a Verified, no close paraphrasing
  - 27b Verified, number

Hold for above issues. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for taking the time to look at this one for me. I think I've seen to most of these, wondering if you know whether manually archiving the official site would preserve its current version as I've seen it update quite often without leaving any permanent links behind for past versions. GRAPPLE X 23:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've tried saving it here, but considering how much flash and javascript they use I'm not sure if it works. I'd suggest putting useful information in, like the meaning of the name, and then removing it at some later time if the archive didn't work. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:15, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, it seems that those elements are stopping the archived version from loading correctly (I'm just getting a constant loop of the little loading bar). What would you suggest to do in that case? GRAPPLE X 23:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I had to dive into the source for this, but here's a better link Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Also, it should be worth noting the symbolism intended with the cover and that the band recorded this after a bit of a break (second statement also supported by another source, although I forget which). Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Added some information about the cover (tried looking through Krug's website, where he lists interview links, for anything additional, but he doesn't seem to discuss individual album covers), but I can't seem to track down anything about the band having been on a break (3 years isn't really that long, though, and there was a live album and a greatest hits in that time too). One of the Pitchfork refs mentions that "Ace of Hz" was their first single for two years, was that the one you were thinking of? GRAPPLE X 00:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        No, but that sounds useful to put this in historical context. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Added, and broke the production paragraph into several smaller paragraphs. GRAPPLE X 02:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Passing. Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! GRAPPLE X 02:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]