Talk:Modern Vampires of the City/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: EditorE (talk · contribs) 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my sister are a fan of Vampire, so I'm happy to review this!

First comments

It would be best if the "Background" section was renamed "Background and writing", since the last paragraph of this section is about how the members wrote the album.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Robert Christgau is a very notable critic and many other articles have presented his reviews in MSN Music as "Robert Christgau" in the album ratings table, the same should be done for this article's ratings template.

I disagree. Other articles crediting the critic's name instead of the publication publishing his review seems like a POV/undue weight issue when other notable critics (Ann Powers, David Fricke, to name a few) aren't given the same weight. More importantly, WP:MOS says "style and formatting should be consistent within an article", so it would be inconsistent to present the reviewer as "Robert Christgau" in the template and leave the other reviewers by publication name. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The word "ranked" is used in the "Accolades" section way too much.

I've replaced that quote farm with a brief summary. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #5: The "Clash Music Exclusive General" part should not be in the title, and "Clashmusic.com" should be changed to Clash.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #8: Page numbers, please.

I added a url instead to make it accessible. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #31: since SpinMedia is a publisher, not an actual publication, the name should not be italicized. The publisher name should also be presented as "SpinMedia".

Removed; publisher not normally used for periodicals (Template:Citation#Publisher). Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #38: The author field should be left blank if it doesn't specify the writers of the article.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref #14: Italicize "The Guardian" since it's a newspaper. Same for Ref #91: Italicize "UKChartsPlus" since it's a magazine.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is with the publication names being included in the "Author" fields of the source templates you're using (if you actually are)? They should be put properly in the "work" or "publisher" fields of the templates.

I didn't add those lol. Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all newspaper/magazine sources, no matter if there's another source with the same publication being used in the article, need to present the publisher for newspaper/magazine sources.

Template:Citation#Publisher says "Publisher" is normally not used for periodicals, so I'll remove them from all such sources. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the Hung Medien sources, the website name should not be displayed as "[countryname]charts.com". They should be displayed as "[Country name] Charts Portal." Or something like that.

I reduced those sources to one (since each one shows all chart positions) and named Hung Medien as the publisher. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every source/publisher that has a wikipedia article need to be linked only the first time a source from that publication is cited in the article. I'm noticing sources that have their publications never linked, or not linked the first time but linked in a later citation from the publication.

Fixing. Let me know if there are still any left. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the recording and production section, the paragraph discussing the title of the album doesn't really have anything to do with recording or producing an album. Maybe put it in the background section? 和DITOR E tails 14:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Choosing the title and cover photo is a part of creating an album IMO, "production" in a broader sense than sound reproduction. If placed in "Background", it would seem anachronistic. Dan56 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More comments likely to come. 和DITOR E tails 14:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While not every bit of info is required for a good article, I'm noticing accolades on the "Misc List" section of this page listing several other accolades from notable sources that are not listed in this article, mostly first-half-of-decade lists and first-half-of-year lists. You should probably add them. 和DITOR E tails 18:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NME and Pitchfork's "so far" decade lists are already included, as is Time. I've added Billboard's list. EW is a particular critic's (Nick Catucci) as opposed to Entertainment Weekly's. I don't see any reason to add the others, either by minor publications, readers' choices, or lists published midway through a year, which seem irrelevant. Dan56 (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, the first Rolling Stone citation needs to have "Rolling Stone" wikilinked. Same goes for the magazine name for ref 5. Otherwise, I'm glad to pass this. Good work! 和DITOR E tails 23:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]