Talk:More (soundtrack)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Review

To come.... Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for this - it's one of the few remaining Floyd albums that isn't at GA; it's a bit sparse for content but that's all I could find under the regular collection of sources. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Anything happening with this? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the delay! I've just been excessively busy between family and job this December. :( Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem, I've been the same. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Prose / grammar

• I made a couple edits already. Almost everything I'd change now is just personal preference, so I say it looks quite good on this front! The manual of style is also followed.
• The first paragraph of the "background" section is entirely in the past perfect tense. While this is certainly grammatically correct, I'm not sure it's the best choice stylistically. Generally, the past perfect tense will be used in reference to something, but that "something" has not yet been discussed in the "background" section and is not discussed at all in the paragraph. Maybe this should be changed to just the past tense?

I've copyedited this, and trimmed the prose down a bit. In general, if the tense is being forced into a sentence, it probably means it wants a rewrite to be simpler to understand. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I like this a lot better now. Thank you for your improvements! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• The article complies with the manual of style.

Sources

• What makes "superdeluxeedition.com" a reliable source?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

• There is no source for the track listing. I'm not particularly familiar with reviewing music articles (I mostly do natural sciences and math), but is this because the track listing can be effectively sourced to the vinyl itself?

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. As is often quoted from both the verifiability policy and the GA criteria, citations are only needed for claims challenged or likely to be challenged. Since the track listing can be gained by simply looking at the album cover, I don't believe an inline citation is necessary. It might be reasonable to request one if the information was controversial or questionable (eg: whether a hidden track should appear in the main listing or not), but that's not the case here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:11, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

That makes sense to me! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• In the infobox, the genre is not sourced, and I cannot find "psychedelic rock" cited anywhere in the article either.

There was a source, but I think it got removed by accident. Anyway, fixed. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:07, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for these changes! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Other than these minor issues, excellent citation work!

Images

• The article uses one image, the cover of the album, in accordance with fair use.

Other

• Spot checks for plagiarism revealed  no plagiarism.
• I don't really like the "charts" section being off by itself with just a table and nothing else. Perhaps it should be merged with the "release and reception" section?

I did a spot check of other Pink Floyd albums, A Saucerful of Secrets, Ummagumma and Atom Heart Mother. All have either a "Charts" or "Charts and certifications" section, and all are assessed as GA status. So I would say a standalone section is at least consistent. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Overall

• Great work! This is an excellently-written article, and with just a very minor bit of polish, it can definitely be a GA. Honestly, it probably already meets GA criteria, but I do have a few questions and thoughts that I've listed above. Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I've addressed the above issues (though some were by explaining why I didn't think there was an issue rather than fixing the article) - how does it look now to you? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries! I don't expect every single one of my thoughts or suggestions to be acted upon. In many cases, they are simply thoughts about potential improvements that I'm unsure would actually improve the article. (I'm generally not an expert in the subject matter, and I don't want to enforce my writing style on the article.) The only real concerns I had were the sourcing points you addressed above.

Anyway, I believe this article now passes the good article criteria, so I will be promoting it shortly. Thank you for your work, and apologies again for the delay! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)