Talk:Heroes (Willie Nelson album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 00:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll volunteer for this one. It will be my first time to review an album from this genre.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro and non-prose sections

Do we know what kind of album this is (studio, compilation, EP...)? The number of the record could be also added (tenth, eleventh album...)
Furthermore, it would be nice if you mention the release date in the opening sentence, and cite the producer in the second one.
The infobox needs additional filling; put the recording date and duration.
Is it necessary to list all artist who are featured on the record. Mention the most significant ones.
No need to say "All tracks performed by Willie Nelson" when it's his album actually. Instead, you can incorporate "| all_writing = Willie Nelson".
Write a "Production" sub-section to "Personnel". Also put the rest of the artist to "Musicians".
Did the album charted only on two charts?

More to come.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

I suggest to put the reviews in another section since there are many of them. You can cut non-star ratings from the box (Country Music Television, Chicago Reader, Star Tribune, Associated Press, and New York Post) since the limit is ten.
Also exclude the ratings from the prose since they are given in the table.
Regarding the first paragraph about the release info, that could be expanded with information about sales, charts, certifications, etc. If you couldn't find enough sources, you can merge that paragraph into the first section. Then the title would be "Recording and release". And speaking about the title, "Background" should be omitted anyway because there is nothing that speaks about Nelson's career background in that section.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

Is it well-written?

Clear & concise?

Not done Although the prose is understandable, it's not "well-written".

Manual of style compliance?

Done

Is it verifiable with no original research?

Is there a list of citations consistent with guidelines?

Done

In-line citations from reliable sources?

Done

No original research?

Done

Is it broad in its coverage?

Main aspects?

Not done Definitely not broad enough since it doesn't feature many of the sections recommended in the WP:MOS-ALBUM.

No more detail than needed?

Done All the information in the article are related to the theme.

Is it neutral? Done The positive and negative aspects from the professional reviews are presented in the "Critical reception" section.

Is it stable? Done No disruptive edits can be seen in the article's history.

Does it have images where reasonably expected to have images? Done The cover art and the audio sample have non-free use rationale and their use is appropriate.

Conclusion: In its current condition, the article fails two important criteria. However, I'll leave the discussion open for a couple of days more to see if any progress will be achieved.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]