Talk:Like a Virgin (album)/GA2

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article has a number of problems which make is far from a Good Article and is many cases it is a shoddy mess. It is rambling, non-encyclopedic, has no structure and at times fails to even have a point. It requires re-writing from scratch if it is to be anywhere near Good Article standards.

1) The most pressing and instantly off-putting aspect of the article as it stands is its use of English. The English grammar and spelling used is generally poor and often confusing. It is also far from encyclopedic. A small sample follows.

-Like a Virgin is not that much of a musical departure from the first album, but the material is stronger.

-Madonna wanted the album title and the cover image to make provocative link between her own religious name Madonna

-Madonna also collaborated with her former boyfriend Steve Bray, who co-produced majority of the songs on the album.

-To promote Like a Virgin, Madonna embarked on her first concert tour—The Virgin Tour—which travelled in cities of North America only.

-referring to the incident, when due to certain difference of opinion between producer Reggie Lucas and Madonna while developing the debut album, Lucas left the project half-way

-The recording sessions did not start until the afternoon as Rodgers used to be in late-night parties and was not accustomed to work in early mornings.

-It received positive reviews from contemporary as well as old critics

-The song was appreciated by contemporary critics as well as authors

-Many songs from the album were performed during her first headlining The Virgin Tour. It was strictly one for the United States and Canada.

I can agree with these and can copy edit. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) The article carries far too much information. The Composition section is bloated, featuring over-detailed and unnecessary descriptions of the songs featured on the albums e.g. the song includes a noise resembling someone slapping a microphone. Much of the information in this section has simply been copied from the individual entries for the singles released from this album, which is where it belongs. Again, the Singles section is bloated with information that belongs on the individual entries for the singles in question. Detailed descriptions on the music videos accompanying the single releases do not belong, I believe, in the entry for the parent album.

No. They are not. Every album article should have a composition section dedicated to every possible song on the album. Your assumption is whenever there are explanations, that's too much detail. Which shows in your succeeding points. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) The article is repetitive. Much of the information that is included in the overlong introduction has also been copied and pasted into the main body of the article.

Umm thats the point of WP:LEAD. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4) The introduction, at four (long) paragraphs is far too long

Again, WP:LEAD please. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5) There are many instances of OR or statements with no references to back them up.

-a closer inspection reveals Madonna's image as highly fetishized and sexualized

-At one point, Macy's allotted an entire floor area for the sale of clothes styled according to Madonna's fashion

-In addition, at a time when eighties fashions were promoting flat-chested, stick-thin women as ideals of beauty, the more curvaceous Madonna made average girls feel that it was fine to be in the shape they were

-Early on there were plans to schedule dates in England and Japan due to Madonna's large fan base in both countries. However, the final schedule did not reflect the idea Paul75 (talk) 13:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, no none of them are original research. What they are lacking are inline citations, which should be equally spaced I think. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow this nomination again comes back to copy edit, not even prose issues. I find this one to be fundamentally flawed, but oh well. This will remain its GA status anyway. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 13:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't agree with this re-assessment. This article was passed over a year ago, and easily met the criteria. It is not his fault, or the article's that GA criteria has evolved. So what, you are going to re-assess every GA done since this year? No. In the mean-time, the article isn't that bad, just needing of some skimming and copy-edit. Instead of wasting time here, you'd be more helpful in fixing GAs that are in much worse and critical shape.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nathan, its fine that he raised a reassessment. But point is why the hell raise a reassessment when you just point out copyediting issues? Isn't it just a waste of time for everyone? I personally feel that a talk page notice detailing this would have been enough. No offence Paul, just a suggestion. Go through other GA reassessments to know when to raise a separate thread, and when things can be resolved in the talk page. A check of your edits show that you do edit Madonna related articles, and could have easily done those ce here. Sigh — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]