Talk:Reality Killed the Video Star/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cavie78 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): (citations to reliable sources): (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hi MariAna_MiMi, I think this is a pretty well-written article, a vast improvement over the original version submitted for GA in May. I have identified a handful of problems that need addressing before I can promote to GA - these are detailed below.

General

Citations should appear after a mark of punctuation. For example, in the lead the cite for platinum certification in Europe should be placed after the comma i.e. "The album has been certified platinum in Europe for sales of over one million copies,[10] including 900,000 copies sold in the UK alone.[11] Done

The link to the German EMI page [55] should be direct rather than going to a Google translate page. Done

Background information

Just a personal thing but I think it would be better to simply call the section 'Background'. Done

Do we know what happened to the material Williams worked on with Chambers, Mekanik and Ronson acting as producers? Did this actually happen or was it just a rumour? Why was the decision made to work exclusively with Horn?

It did take place, but it seems that it did not make the album in the end. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Reality Killed The Video Star was Williams' first studio album in three years [...] the British singer later confirmed [...]" Can you give some dates here? Done

"At first it was believed that Williams had reunited with Chambers, but it was later confirmed that the song "Blasphemy" was written during the recording sessions of his fifth studio album Escapology, although it was not included in the album." this sentence could be worded better - you should make it more obvious that "Blasphemy" was written by Williams and Chambers. Done

"In February..." Year needed. Done

"Rumours of a new studio album co-written with Chambers had surfaced in early 2007 along with known commitments required by Williams to complete his EMI contract. British singer-songwriter Laura Critchley commented that she had sung vocals for three songs, and said that the LP would not be released until 2009." There's no cite for first sentence. The quote by Critchley comes from September 2007 but it's placement makes it sound like it refers to recording in early 2007.

Added cite for 1st sentence. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 11:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The album was mostly written in Williams' home studio and was recorded in London." Cite? Done

From the album booklet. Don't know if I can find a source. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the album cite template for the booklet:

{{cite album-notes|title=|albumlink=|bandname=|year=|notestitle=|url=|first=|last=|page=|format=|publisher=|publisherid=|location=}}

I need some help with this... I'm not sure how to use it. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:55, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title is the album title, albumlink is the title of the Wiki page on that article (in this case it would be the same as title), bandname would be Robbie Williams, year is the year of release, format is 'CD booklet', publisher is the record company that released the CD. You can leave the other fields blank.Cavie78 (talk) 19:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Amongst those who collaborated in the songwriting are Danny Spencer and Kelvin Andrews, Brandon Christy, Craig Russo, Richard Scott and Scott Ralph, Chas Jankel and Fil Eisler." Not supported by the cite. Done

They are listed at the official track listing section. Should I try to find a source? They are also listed at Allmusic. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 10:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See above.

"he described himself as "buzzing, it sounds big. Very, very big"." Needs rewording to something like "he described himself as "buzzing" and went on to call the album's sound "Very, very big". Done

"Williams spoke about what he expects from the album" I think it would be better to say "Williams spoke about his hopes for the album..." Also, when was this? Presumably before the album's release? Done

Musical style

Why is this a subsection of 'Background'? I see no reason why it shouldn't be a level 2 heading. Done

Is there more to say about the musical style of the album? The section is good but it is all taken from a single source...

I will try, but I'm not sure if I can find more info on that. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

I'm a bit concerned that this section contains a bit too much information about particular performances. For example: "The singer appeared on The X Factor on October 11, 2009 to perform live. He was featured on the November 2009 cover of GQ UK."

"Other artists who have previously won the award include Paul McCartney, Sting, David Bowie, Elton John, Paul Weller, Tom Jones, U2 and Eurythmics." I'm not sure this is relevant - the article is not about this particular BRIT award. Done

Singles

You should include a release date for "Bodies". Done

Critical reception

The section relies too much on large chunks of quotes. You summarise reviews in your own words, using quotes to support. Done

I will need more time to do this. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

Why do we need to know how the album fared in comparison with Susan Boyle and JLS? You should point out that the JLS album pipped Reality... to number 1 in the UK charts.

Shouldn't I leave that there? Because the album had the 3rd best selling 1st week of 2009. That's why I think the others should be mentioned too. MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 18:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the info as long as you say why it's there. Cavie78 (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining concerns

Thanks for addressing most of my concerns MariAna. There are still a few issues remaining which I've detailed below for ease of reference. Cavie78 (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you fully understood my point about overquoting in the 'Critical reception' section. At present you pretty much just say "Critic A from publication X said "..." and "..."". There is no need for direct quotes to be used in the majority of cases. For instance this is ok:

“

Mikael Wood from Spin gave the album a 7/10 rating. He said that the album includes "cowbell-enhanced rave-up, a bit of Lady Gaga–ish electro-pop, and one track named after Transformers" and went on to call the record "a charm offensive with stars and stripes".

”

But you could easily put much of this in your own words:

“

Slant Magazine music critic Jonathan Keefe gave the album a mixed review, rating it with two and a half stars (out of five) and talked about Williams' success in the United States: "Williams has never approached the same degree of success in the United States as he has enjoyed on the international scene, where he is a bona fide superstar." Keefe felt that "the songs here too often return to the heavy balladry and slick adult-pop of Williams's earlier recordings that did not find favor with American audiences." He concluded the review by saying that "By downplaying Williams's formerly irrepressible charm, Reality simply doesn't make for an effective reintroduction to one of the U.S. pop market's biggest missed opportunities."

”

I would suggest something like:

“

Slant Magazine music critic Jonathan Keefe gave the album a mixed review, rating it with two and a half stars (out of five) and talked about Williams' lack of success in the United States, calling him "one of the U.S. pop market's biggest missed opportunities". Keefe felt that the album featured the sort of "heavy balladry and slick adult-pop" that made Williams' earlier records unappealing to American audiences and suggested that by "downplaying [his] formerly irrepressible charm", Reality... doesn't do enough to reintroduce the singer to the U.S."

”

Done

I meant the above as a suggestion to try and explain how other quotes in the section could be reworded. Try to frame things in your own words rather than simply copying chunks of text. Cavie78 (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only used small parts of the quotes, the way it is now is a significant change form how it used to be. Should I change more? I don't think that there are too many chunks of text, after all it should state what the reviewer said with quotes and not the way I said it. No? MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 17:09, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem better now. I've made some minor changes and I consider my problems with this section addressed. Cavie78 (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't dealt with my concerns regarding the JLS info in the 'Commercial performance'. You need to say that the JLS album pipped Reality... to number 1 in the UK charts. Done

The 'Release and promotion' section contains too much 'trivia' type information in my opinion. For instance:

“

The singer appeared on The X Factor on October 11, 2009 to perform live. He was featured on the November 2009 cover of GQ UK.

”

Why is this important? You say nothing about the content of, what I presume was an interview in GQ. What song/s did he perform on the X Factor? Was this actually promotion for the album?

He performed "Bodies", I added that. I will read the GQ interview to see if there is any info about the album.

GQ interview page 4, he talks about the album. Should I add the interview to the external links section perhaps?

No but I'd definitely state that the interview concerns the album to make it more obvious. Also, can you use any of the interview to flesh out the article? Cavie78 (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you could do more with the 'Musical style' section - many of the reviews you use talk about the musical style of the album.

I have added other opinions regarding this section from The Quietus & BBC Music should I add more? MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 21:17, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly think you could improve the article by adding more but the changes you've made means I'm happy to promote to GA, good work! Cavie78 (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank U very much!! :-) MariAna_MiMi (Talk) 15:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt it time to close this GA review and grant it GA-status. We cant have unreasonable high demands on a single article. I personally atleast find it to be GA ready by far.--BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a case of "personally" finding an article to be GA ready, there are a list of criteria which need to be checked against and I certainly don't think I have made "unreasonale demands" on this article. MariAna asked for some extra time to address my remaining, minor, concerns which I have granted. When this is done I will give the article GA status. Cavie78 (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]