Jump to content

Talk:Never Let Me Down/GA2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 02:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Sorry you've had to wait so long--thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feedback inline below. 87Fan (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

At first glance, this seems to have some minor issues, but appears well-researched and a good contender for GA status. I've listed a few initial issues below; once you've had a chance to respond to these, I'll plow on through to the end. My apologies that these are a bit out of order.

  • "this was one of the most enjoyable and energetic albums he had made in a long time" -- and which album is that?
    • Done. (I clarified the statement)
  • "Recalled Bowie, "I took up a 4-track and some guitars, a drum machine, and we started writing up in the mountains. It just worked really well."" -- this quotation needs to be followed by an inline citation
    • Done. (citation added)
  • " "an inspired and brilliantly crafted work. It's charged with a positive spirit that makes art soul food; imbued with the contagious energy that gives ideas a leg to dance on"" -- this quotation needs a better citation; what source is being used here if we don't even know what issue it appears in?
    • Yeah, I knew this was problematic. The problem is all I have is a clipping from the magazine, but the clipping doesn't say what month it is. I now have no way of knowing what issue it came from. Suggestions?
  • Hmmm. Unfortunately, I think that probably doesn't meet verifiability standards; while I'm sure what you're saying is correct, WP:V does require others to be able to find the source, and that would be tricky in this case. Does your clipping have a title, or alternatively, is there any information that could be used to find a fuller citation online?
  • "but by 1989 they had changed their mind and called the album "disappointing"." -- Are we sure it was the same reviewer or review board in both instances? It seems more likely that one reviewer liked and another did not, than the magazine "changing its mind" per se.
    • It was different reviewers for the same magazine. Done. (language improved)
  • " Bowie had picked up on what was happening in America through the media about the treatment of the homeless" -- "picked up on" doesn't seem quite neutral here, as if Bowie has discovered the final truth about homeless people's treatment. Also, it would be preferable to say US to America here, unless Bowie means the continent as a whole. Perhaps just "because of Bowie's concern for the homeless in the United States"?
    • I have never liked the way I wrote that sentence initially. Done. (language improved)
  • Source 14 should be filled out so it's not a bare link; Source 31 needs a title to be considered verifiable. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated source 14, but in the process found a good mention about a song so it's now source #12 (because I use the source twice in the article now). I'll work on source 31 because I'm going to have to dig it out of a stack to look it up.
      • Well, that was easier than I expected. Source #31 has been updated too.

More

[edit]

Only some minor points this time:

  • Refs #2-5 and 14 need to be a little more specific to be verifiable--how could someone verify these references? (Were these conferences reprinted in a news story, available on DVD extras, YouTube, etc.?)
  • 2-5 & 14 have been updated. I found youtube recordings of these press conferences (which aren't under copyright restrictions). THey're not the sources I used originally (I have vinyl copies of the press conferences), but they'll do! (i think!) 87Fan (talk) 17:02, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've double-checked with a more knowledgeable user about how copyright works for a press conference recording; that's a situation I haven't encountered before. At worst, we can just list the album information provided in that image without giving a link, though.
  • "Bowie's next few tours were designed specifically to avoid the problems that the Glass Spider Tour was ultimately criticized for" -- what problems are those--is it possible to give a little more detail?
  • I added a little prose here... I was trying to keep this section light since there's a whole article available on the subject, but let me know if there's more that should be done. 87Fan (talk) 19:12, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #33 probably needs the article title, or perhaps a page number, to be verifiable.

That takes me through to the end of the article. I'll begin the checklist in a moment. -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is great, I'll address these in the next day or so once I get some time to dig into the sources a little better (for instance, 2-5 & 14 are on Youtube, so I just need to locate the right links). Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 15:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good! Make sure you find copies on YouTube that you're sure aren't copyrighted before linking per the policy at WP:YT. If we can't find appropriate copies, let me know, and I'll ask some users more knowledgeable about citing videos for advice about how to proceed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok the lead has been re-written. This required some changes in the article as I moved refs around, etc. I added one or two refs as well (there was never one for the gold certification before). Let me know if anything needs to be updated - I think I did it all correctly. 87Fan (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

[edit]
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. Prose is clear, though I still intend to do one last proofread when we're done. Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues. Youtube links need to be removed.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. The lead needs work to better summarize the article. It should touch on the material from sections like critical response and legacy. Also, the lead should not contain information not covered in the article's body. Facts like the gold certification, the next album, etc., should therefore be moved out of the lead and into the body. Relevant guideline at WP:LEAD
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.
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). Some references need minor elaboration to be considered verifiable.
2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Minor request for more information above.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. Pass
  • Okay, so three things are left, one for you and two for me:
  1. Rewrite lead per suggestions in checklist/WP:LEAD
  2. (Me) Give article one last proofreading
  3. {Me} Confirm copyright status of press conferences -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will do this when I get a chance, likely later tonight. I think this (barring any feedback on the lead section re-write) is the last thing I need to change per your feedback. Please let me know if I've missed something.87Fan (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, that should do it. Thanks again for your diligent revisions. I'll let you know if I see anything else in a last readthrough; otherwise, this should be good to go. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awesome, thank you. One note as a TODO: for me: Fix the links to the press conferences to be to the vinyl instead of YouTube. Plus anything you mark in your final readthrough. One last question: should I bother putting this article up for FA status? I've never done that before, if you think this article has a chance I would consider it. Thank you for all your help with this!! I look forward to working with you again. 87Fan (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only saw one issue of possible note: "However, in later years Bowie's take on the album seems to have softened, and he re-recorded the track "Time Will Crawl" in 2008 for his album of self-selected favorite songs, iSelect." This is a little bit original research/speculation. I boldly shortened it; is this acceptable to you? Alternatively, if we can find a source mentioning this "softening" directly, that'd be fine too. Other than that, I think once the YouTube citation issue is fixed, this is ready for promotion.
And it's been a great pleasure working with you, too! Thanks for all your quick and conscientious fixes, as well as your work on this in general.
As for the next step, I'd strongly suggest going to peer review before trying a FA nomination, and possibly putting in a request with the Guild of copy-editors as well. My personal opinion (solely from watching other FA nominations, I've never tried myself) is that FA status is a bit broken these days and involves a good deal of hoop-jumping: precise and consistent format of citations, rigid adherence to the MOS in various style points, and putting up with a lot of unnecessary suggestions for prose "improvements". It's also hard simply to get enough reviews to pass if you haven't built up a lot of relationships with other editors that you can ask. You might also try to find an editor experienced with music/album FAs who could be a co-nominator to shepherd you through if the peer reviewers suggest that the article is ready. IMHO--not to take anything away from the many amazing editors who contribute FAs--you could write 2-3 additional GAs in the time that it would take to polish this up to FA requirements, and it'd be a far more significant contribution. But that's just my two centse. Whatever you choose to do with it in the future, good luck! -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Youtube links have been replaced. I am fine with your edit to the statement about his re-recording the song "Time Will Crawl" and I appreciate your feedback on next steps. In all likelihood I will focus on improving other articles to GA quality and not worry about FA status. Thank you very much!! Please let me know if there's anything else I need to do. 87Fan (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Never_Let_Me_Down/GA2&oldid=967081994"