Talk:Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters

Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

France Low‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame to see this review has been abandoned again and again - so although I'll freely admit that hip-hop isn't my area of expertise, I think I've done enough album GA reviews to know what's required

Lead

Is it worth adding an English translation of the title (eg: "Orelsan and Gringe are the Wet Bandits")
The first two paragraphs could be merged.
The lead could be expanded a little to give some of the background information on the album as mentioned in the body
The release date should be mentioned in the body.

I'll leave comments on the body soon. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background

"Orelsan's two studio albums Perdu d'avance and Le chant des sirènes were met with huge success" - I think "huge" is too strong a word (see WP:WEASEL); maybe "met with commercial and critical success" would be better?
"the latter won him the Urban Music Album of the Year award at the 2012 Victoires de la Musique" - per WP:REFBLOAT, I don't think you need five citations to this relatively straightforward fact
The remainder of the paragraph is unsourced. For a claim like "Orelsan himself garnering several more accolades and nominations in the process" - this is particularly problematic.

Composition

"Orelsan kept his feet on the ground" - per WP:IDIOM this will need to be reworded, otherwise it won't make sense for readers worldwide
The inline quotation is a bit long - I think it's probably better to just paraphrase it in your own words, using smaller quotations for the real "meat" of the claim
What makes LesInrocks.com a reliable source?

Singles

This section is too short. I would suggest renaming this "Release", add in the album's release date, any direct promotional activity around it, and then include the information about "Bloqué"

Reception

What makes Republ33k.fr a reliable source?
I think the quotation from Higher Magazine is a bit too long and should be cut down, as it could be conceived to be a copyright violation.

Personnel

You shouldn't cite from discogs.com, it's not considered a reliable source as anyone can add or update information on it. I was going to say "get the original CD and cite that", except these days I'm not sure all albums are still released on CD. In any case, a more authoritative source for the credits is required. I have seen a handful of cases of what appears to be subtle vandalism by adding fictitious credits to albums or band personnel, so it really is important the information can be verifiable.

Summary

I've gone through the article, and the problem I have at the moment is it isn't really long - just under 5K of prose, and once the overlong quotations are trimmed down, the article will be even shorter. That leaves it at risk of being merged with the band's parent article. By contrast, Random Access Memories, which I would consider a reasonably close enough GA in terms of style and topic, is seven times as long. Admittedly, that album has had more commercial success, but not that much commercial success?

I'm tempted to close the review as "not listed", but that wouldn't be particularly nice or fair given you've had the review kicked back or abandoned so many times, but I don't want to put it "on hold" yet as that implies its close to passing GA, and I'm not sure it is. I'll grab a second opinion about whether to proceed before making a final decision, but I would advise you to expand the "Background" and "Composition" sections. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to provide a second opinion. Aside from merging, I agree with all of Ritchie's points and suggest failure. There isn't anything on promotion or release on the album, and really short sections/subsections are discouraged per MOS:LAYOUT. Swiss and Belgian chartings should also be mentioned in prose for "commercial performance", though I would remove the subheadings for that and "critical reception". Another problem is how there is nothing on opening sales. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I tend to restrict chart positions in prose to the native country, any large markets and anywhere where commercial performance was significantly greater at home. Anyway, I have closed the review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]