Talk:Ramones (album)/GA1
(Redirected from Talk:Ramones (Ramones album)/GA1)
GA Review
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I am reviewing this article and have done quite a bit of copy editing to clean up spelling, time sequencing and such. Feel free to remove the pullquote I added in the "Reception" section.
- What makes these references reliable?
-
- It's not, i replaced it with a "Museum of Modern Art" source.
- Tower Records is an established, third-party website in its respectful field (music)
- Reply Isn't it a record store, the music equivalent of Amazon.com? Xtzou (Talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- As it says in its Terms of Use, "Tower.com and its content providers attempt to be as accurate as possible with the product information provided. However, Tower.com does not warrant that product descriptions or other content of the Tower Web Sites are accurate, complete, reliable, current, or error-free. If a product offered by Tower.com is not as described, your sole remedy is to return it in unused condition." (see [1]), however, The New York Times says "Neither NYT nor NYTimes.com represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement, or other information displayed, uploaded, or distributed through the Service by any user, information provider or any other person or entity. You acknowledge that any reliance upon any such opinion, advice, statement, memorandum, or information shall be at your sole risk." (see [2]) and AMG's Allmusic says "AMG DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT THE INFORMATION ACCESSIBLE VIA THIS SITE IS ACCURATE, COMPLETE, OR CURRENT." (see [3])
- Reply Isn't it a record store, the music equivalent of Amazon.com? Xtzou (Talk) 19:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Reply Well, what I noticed is that Tower uses snippets from the reviews of others. So you really don't know what you are getting there. They are violating copy right by Wikipedia standards. Xtzou (Talk) 19:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- But if it violated the Wikipedia standards, wouldn't Tower Records be deleted from Wikipedia? (Note: It has been an article since December 11, 2004, and has never had a proposed/speedy deletion.)
- Reply The fact that it is a notable company (notable enough to have its own article) doesn't mean it's a reliable source for information about this article. One has nothing to do with the other. Xtzou (Talk) 20:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Okay well I changed the reference to album notes, since it also says where it was recorded.
- References such as Leigh 2009, McNeil and McCain 2009 need to have full reference info some where, in a Bibliography if necessary.
- They are right under the references section. (McNeil, Legs; McCain, Gillian (April 13, 2006), Please Kill Me: The Uncensored Oral History of Punk, Grove Press, ISBN 0802142648, Leigh, Mickey (2009), I Slept With Joey Ramone: A Family Memoir, Touch Stone, ISBN 9780743252164)
- Per WP:Lead, the lead needs to be a summary of the article, in proportion to the weight in the article. That does not seem to be the case. Also, there is info in the lead that is not in the article, such as " The group covered the song "Let's Dance", a Chris Montez song from his first single. Several of the tracks have backing vocals by Mickey Leigh, Tommy Ramone, and executive producer/engineer Rob Freeman." (unless I missed it). Such information often goes in a "Production" section.
- I added the Chris Montez song one, but the backing vocals part was already in the article. I think they actually go in the "Lyrical and musical themes" section.
- I think the lead is not in sequence. It talks of being on the all time greats lists before it relates what the immediate reception was.
- Done
- The immediate reception and it's place in rock music history are separate events. And there needs to be some explanation of why a popular album became an "all time great", as not all very popular albums do.
- I'm pretty sure it explains that, with many critics giving it positive reviews.
- All in all, I think it is a interesting article. It just needs to be a little tighter and more organized in the way it presents the information. I may be adding more comments.
Xtzou (Talk) 18:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Further comments
- From Recording and production:" It was ranked thiry-three on the Rolling Stone Magazine's The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time.[15] VH1 named the album number fifty-three on their 100 Greatest Albums of Rock & Roll'." - this didn't happen immediately upon release. I think there needs to be a statement about its immediate reception, versus its long-term impact. Also, why is this discussed in this section of the article? Xtzou (Talk) 19:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
- Done
- Reply The article is coming along nicely. I am too tired now, but I will review it again tomorrow. I really appreciate your quick replies and willingness to improve the article! Xtzou (Talk) 21:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)