Jump to content

Talk:Nothing Was the Same/GA1

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: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prose
Lead
  • There's an inconsistency with release dates. Infobox says September 20th while intro says September 24th. The earliest release should be used for both instances.
  • The "Hidden Hills" link seems to be leading to the wrong article. I'm guessing it was meant to link to Hidden Hills, California.
  • Fix the "Jay Z" redirect to "Jay-Z"
Background
  • Give a time range (i.e. October 2011) for when "Drake announced in an interview that he had begun work on his third studio album".
  • Per MOS:QUOTEMARKS, ' should be used in place of ’. There are several instances in the quote to GQ and several more in the quote to XXL where this needs to be addressed.
Recording and production
  • "(who produced Take Care's title track)" isn't really needed as it isn't from this album.
  • Make sure there are no redirects or stylization.
  • The problem in this case is how they go against WP:COMMONNAME (particularly those that are stylized)
Promotion
  • "In March 2013 he would premiere" → "In March 2013, Drake would premiere"
Singles
  • Make sure there are no redirects.
  • WP:COMMONAME
  • COMMONNAME applies to article titles and the name the subject is refereed to in their articles. It has absolutly nothing to do with this article, unless Drake is not his common name or there is a more common name for the album. I think NOTBROKEN summarizes exactly why redirects are perfectly fine and can be perfered by some editors. It is up to personal choice really, and as far as I know there is nothing in the GA critera that discounts WP:NOTBROKEN, which is a part of the editing guideline WP:REDIRECTS. STATic message me! 18:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyways,  Done I believe. STATic message me! 21:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
  • There are a few MOS:QUOTEMARKS errors that need to be addressed in Eric Diep's review (XXL).
  • Make sure there are no redirects.
Tracklisting
  • Make sure there are no redirects or stylization.
Personnel
  • "Allmusic" should read "AllMusic"
  • Make sure there are no redirects or stylization.
Charts
  • Make sure there are no redirects.
Sourcing
Background
  • ref#5 (GQ) has a couple of MOS:QUOTEMARKS errors that need fixing.
Recording and production
  • Remove ref#15 (Huffington Post)- they're known for often lying in things like politics, science, medicine, and celebs.
  • ref#21 (Complex.com) should read "Complex".
  • ref#24 (Complex.com) should also read "Complex".
  • ref#27 (Rolling Stone) is dead and needs to be replaced or removed.
Album artwork
  • ref#33 (MTV.com) should read MTV or MTV News.
  • ref#35 (Xxlmag.com.) should read XXL.
Commerical performance
  • publisher for ref#75 (Billboard) is Prometheus Global Media.
  • ref#81 needs to be filled out beyond just "Officialcharts.com"
  • ref#83 (danishcharts.com.) should read "Danish Charts"
  • ref#84 (australian-charts.com.) should read "Australian Charts"
  • ref#85 (charts.org.nz.) should read "New Zealand Charts"
  • ref#86 (Chart-track.co.uk.) should read "Chart-track"
  • ref#87 (Billboard) has a MOS:QUOTEMARKS error that needs addressing (look closely).
Critical reception
  • Per WP:OVERCITE, ref#88 (MetaCritic) shouldn't be used twice in a row. Just have it after the "generally favorable reviews" bit.
  • ref#90 (chicagotribune.com.) should read Chicago Tribune
  • ref#91 (EW.com.) should read Entertainment Weekly.
  • ref#92 (Exclaim.ca.) should read Exclaim!.
  • ref#98 (Usatoday.com.) should read USA Today.
  • ref#99 (Xxlmag.com.) should also read XXL.
  • ref#94 (Nowtoronto.com.) should read Now.
  • ref#103 (latimes.com.) should read Los Angeles Times.
Accolades
  • ref#106 (Xxlmag.com.) should also read XXL.
  • ref#108 (EW.com.) should also read Entertainment Weekly.
  • ref#110 (theguardian.com.) should read The Guardian.
  • ref#111 (Exclaim.ca.) should also read Exclaim!.
  • ref#116 (Ibtimes.com) should read International Business Times.
  • ref#117 (Cbc.ca.) should read "CBC News", so take the "CBC News" bit out of the "title" field and put it in "work" field or "publisher" field.
Charts
  • Something seems to be wrong with the title for ref#129 (Dutch Charts)
Coverage
  • No problems here
Neutrality
  • No problems here
Stability
  • No problems here
GA Result
  • If the above is addressed within the next seven days, I will pass the GAN. The main problem is inconsistency within reference names. Relatively minor, but should still be addressed. If including both a work and publisher for refs from the same source for certain refs but not others, include it all in such refs.
Thanks for the detailed review XXSNUGGUMSXX, I will be able to easily take care of this. STATic message me! 03:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure :D. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing for Rolling Stone ref's: "Jann Wenner" is publisher. Please don't have that for some refs and "Wenner Media LLC" for others. As a general note, please stick with one use or another for publishers in ref's. Also, publisher for AllMusic is Rovi Corporation. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fixed all Rolling Stone refs and as for AllMusic, they are now owned/published by All Media Network, not Rovi Corporation anymore. STATic message me! 23:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know (I now have updating to do on refs for other articles). Also, blogspot is not reliable, and take a look here. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The blogspot is his record label/crew OVO Sound/October's Very Own official site, so we can use it for such a minor sentence. As for checklinks, I could have sworn I did that like last month-.- I nominated this sooner then I expected due to lack of free-time in the near future, I will take care of those now. STATic message me! 03:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I just remember being hounded for including blogspot in the past. If you can't find anything else from the label, then just use that. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
XXSNUGGUMSXX Looks to be all done to me, if there is anything else let me know. STATic message me! 01:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a couple last things I only noticed now- ref#97 should read Spin rather than "Spin.com". Also, ref's #15 and #16 talk about Drake working with Fauntleroy but don't mention Cocaine 80s. We'll be good to go after finding refs that support Cocaine 80's and once ref#97 is corrected. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. STATic message me! 02:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
GA! XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XXSNUGGUMSXX Thanks a lot, I really appreciate it :D STATic message me! 04:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Always happy to help, bud :D. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:16, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nothing_Was_the_Same/GA1&oldid=606430120"