Talk:Radio (LL Cool J album)/GA1

GA Review

I've had to fail this article's good article nomination—there are some significant issues that need work. Here are the main points;

All the references need formatting - publishers, accessdates, etc. {{cite web}} is useful.
There are large amounts of text quoted, which is rarely necessary. Use your own words, don't quote more than a line unless absolutely necessary.
The lead needs expansion - it should be two or three paragraphs... see other album GAs/FAs for examples.
It could do with a good independent copyedit.

I'm happy to take another look at this in the future if you think it's closer to criteria. Cheers, giggy _(:O) 04:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copy editing

I'm doing some copy editing from a truly outside perspective, I don't know the subject matter at all. I've run into a contradictory (in my mind) couple of sentences:

Recording sessions took place at Chung King Studios in Manhattan's Chinatown under Rubin's direction.[3] Notable from Rubin's personnel was LL's DJ Jay Philpot, better known as "Cut Creator". A Queens native and former trombonist, Philpot met LL at a block party and they began performing together.

So, did LL meet Cut Creator at a block party, or was Cut Creator part of Rubin's personnel with the assumption they met there? Did LL bring CC to the recording session? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Error?

Someone needs to review the info on this article a little closer:

Sean "Puffy" Combs management Credited in liner notes as "Sean 'Puffy' Combs for Bad Boy Management"

Puffy was a junior in high school when this album dropped and Bad Boy Records didn't exist till '93. --Endless Dan 19:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that was a bit conspicuous myself. I'll check the refs...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Weird. [1] seems to say exactly that. Looking for a second ref to corroborate the "reviewer's" claim. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a re-issue of this album? That could explain that. Check the All Music guide. --Endless Dan 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several releases, but I don't trust AMG as it says the first release was 1990. Wasn't this an '85 album. Hmm. Either way, no mention of puffy. I'll keep looking...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find nuthin on it. Simple math though says that in 1985 it would be, without question, impossible for Combs to be "managing" a record. Perhaps he helped out with a re-release, which also prompts me to ask why there is nothing in the article about the numerous re-releases? (see AMG link above). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall

I've "combed" (no pun intended) through the article, changing what I felt needed changing. I follwed the blue links, nothing should be going to disam pages anymore. I got rid of some hypens replaced with ndash, did some other misc general copyediting. The article reads well, with a couple of suggestions that need someone familiar with the topic to fix:

There seems to be a lot of "tangential" info about Rubin, Def Jam, etc, that while I know is essential for explaining the impact of the album, could possibly be trimmed up a bit more.
In the review section, the quote from Trouser Press is way too long, and chopped up (why are there so many <br/>'s in there?) Should be condensed/summarized, with maybe one or two lines as a "quote", followed by the ref.
I've probably missed a couple of CEs, anything I changed/added/removed can be changed/removed/added. I'm one pair of eyes, more is always better, and again, I don't know the subject matter all that well (I know it better now though:-)

I'll watchlist this for a day or two to see what turns up, or if any further help is needed. Cheers! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Just to note that formatting of professional reviews in the infobox is problematic. The standards of the wikiproject require specific handling there, and this article does not conform. This is not a reference that needs a footnote, but an actual link. Helpful here are Wikipedia:ALBUM#Professional_reviews and the infobox example, which shows how it should be done. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone on ahead and formatted these reviews according to Wikipedia standards. I removed one for sourcing concerns. The Melody Maker review was noted as "favorable", however it was referenced only to a snippet at a commercial site, here. Unless this review has been individually referenced, that snippet can't be used to verify a favorable review, since it only addresses one song. I've also removed a link to an external website offering lyrics according to Wikipedia:EL#Restrictions_on_linking. sing365.com does not license the rights to reprint lyrics, and we can't link to a site that violates copyright. I suggested in edit summary checking MTV, as they sometimes do carry lyrics with proper licensing, but have since checked myself. It looks like they have that material. Once my inexplicably slow connection (of the moment) lets me verify it, I'll add that link instead. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another GA look

It's pretty close to GA, I'd say. The reception section still needs some expansion, first. Rather than throwing in a massive quote there, write more in your own words, use small quotes, and summarise general thoughts concerning the album rather than just quoting chunks. But yeah. Pretty close to GA. —Giggy 06:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reduced the quote slightly and expanded the reception section slightly. How about now? - Dan56 5:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking better, so passing. —Giggy 03:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]