Jump to content

Talk:Selling England by the Pound/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: SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this one, expect comments within a few days Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:17, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Snuggums. Hopefully we can get this one closed down without too much fuss. I've just discovered a great DYK hook for 11 April. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:24, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, Ritchie. Now for the review..... Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:18, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Is the exact release date for "I Know What I Like (In Your Wardrobe)" known?
Not in any reliable source I have, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The album was the band's most commercially successful to that point"..... reads awkwardly
I can't think of a nicer way of saying this, so I've just gone with the chart placings Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is for certifications, not chart peaks. However, material already supported within article body doesn't need to be cited in lead per WP:LEADCITE
  • It would help to give the name of the tours
I don't believe the tours had a name, back in the 70s things were more ad-hoc and sporadic Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be more specific than "early" 1974; "February" would be better
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band's first hit single in the UK" is somewhat vague; I'd at least include a chart range
That would be "top 30" in that case ... done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "were still getting a negative critical reception"..... awkward phrasing
Rejigged Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hadn't" → "had not" per WP:CONTRACTIONS
WP:CONTRACTIONS also says "However, contractions should not be expanded mechanically; sometimes rewriting the sentence is preferable", which is what I've done here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gabriel later said he wrote all his lyrical contributions to the album in two days. Charisma released a live album, Genesis Live, compiled from concerts taped for the radio, to fill the gap" is better suited for the "Recording" section
Do you think so? The lyric writing happened before recording started, as did the release of Genesis Live, so I think putting them in "Recording" would be misleading, as neither occurred during that time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I do Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've rearranged some stuff Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than "forming a pick up band with former Yes guitarist Peter Banks for a few gigs", I'd include quotes from Phil Collins on possibly leaving Genesis
I'll go and check Bowler / Dray again, but I don't believe any quotations were given in the source. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See what else is available Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well there's a good reason I can't find quotes saying Phil wanted to leave Genesis in 1973 - because he didn't! I've reworded the sentence to show who actually said what. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Production
"I'm telling you Richard, Genesis are the best band in the world ever, and Banks' keyboard solo on "Cinema Show" goes faster than a Koenigsegg CCX round Gambon."
"Oh come off it, Jeremy, everyone knows you can't speak a WP:NPOV sentence even if you wanted to!
  • MOS:PARAGRAPHS discourages really short paragraphs, sections, and subsections, so some merging or expansion will need to be done
Do you have any specific paragraphs in mind? All MOS:PARAGRAPHS says is "The number of single-sentence paragraphs should be minimized". I'm not really inclined to expand the text more than what's there, the songs on the album aren't that notable from a non-fan's POV, and bunching it up into one paragraph for side 1 songs and one for side 2 songs makes the paragraphs too big. I used the same approach for The Beatles (album) and it worked well (of course, in that case there is much more to write about each song). What else can you advise. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably have two songs per paragraph as opposed to one paragraph for each song. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've collapsed them together. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Songs
  • I'm not convinced File:Firth of Fifth.ogg is particularly beneficial. Either way, its description isn't very informative, and the FUR shouldn't have "n.a." in any fields.
If "n.a." is inappropriate, why does the upload wizard put it in? :-/ Anyway, let me tell you what Macan makes of the music : "there is a passage that begins in Eb major; the Eb major chord is suddenly interpreted as a major triad in the lower sixth degree of G, which is established through a bVI - bVII - I progression" ... I could go on but I'm losing the will to live - a short audio snippet is unquestionably better by orders of magnitude in my view! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's more incomplete than anything else to have "n.a." in fields, and would help to describe the composition in samples. See the audio samples at Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band for good examples of captions AND complete FUR's.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I also fixed the FUR in the file. My comment was more that I agree that "n.a" isn't suitable, but I didn't notice because the wizard let those values be added - it should have stopped me from uploading. Anyway, the example ogg was exactly what I needed and I have improved the FUR significantly. I think I now finally "get" what a typical FUR should look like - thanks for that. Can you take another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's two reasons. Firstly, any source describing the musical structure of "Firth of Fifth" or the keyboard solo in "Cinema Show" is, inevitably loaded with "zomg Genesis are the BEST BAND EVAH!!!1111one1" POV (as can be demonstrated by Macan's quotation that accompanies the audio sample), so a simple media sample is far better to explain things factually to the reader. Secondly, adding images and boxes helps break up the flow of text to make it easier for the casual reader to parse. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • "Selling England by the Pound was released in the UK on 12 October 1973" should have a citation
I've tagged this for the minute (Bowler / Dray can cite this, I'll do all the book source citations in one go later) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And it's going to have to stay tagged - Bowler / Dray only says it was released in October 1973, no date. 12 October was a Friday, which is generally when albums were released in the 1970s, so it sounds right, but I've got no source for the specific date. Bugger. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a look but I cannot find a reliable source that goes beyond the month of release. Doing a quick straw poll of GAs (eg: Something/Anything?, At Fillmore East), the articles are at GA with just the month, and even for a FA like The Dark Side of the Moon, the determination of a release date to within a month is contentious. So I'm going to stick with "October 1973" and declare that "good enough for now". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing on album sales or certifications?
Not in the sources I've got, no - do you have anything? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I dropped in something about the Gold certification. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry – briefest of drive-bys after I saw the GAR notification when leaving a message on the nom's talk page. For some years from early 1972 onwards, Billboard's top 200 albums chart was titled "Billboard Top LP's & Tape". It only became known as the Billboard 200 in the early 1990s, I believe – certainly much later than this era. But how we should treat the name (whether to adhere to a contemporary title or the current wording), I'm not sure. JG66 (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
Okay, I've taken the second one out
What would we add though? The reviews are opinions, not scores or rankings. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Positive", "mixed", or "negative" are fine Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - and now done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "criticised the album's lyrics for their bad puns, their overuse of specifically British pop culture references, and their sometimes overtly silly rhymes" is POV
  • Who is "they" in "Despite additional complaints with some musical passages, they offered that the album"?
I've solved both these issues by rewriting the entire sentence. In general if somebody spots one or two problems with a sentence, a rewrite can be the best solution. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone needs to be italicized for the "Readers' Poll: Your Favorite Prog Rock Albums of All Time"
Oh yeah, that. Done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No quotes or commentary from the rankings?
Sorry, what do you mean? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than simply things like "one of his ten favourite records of all time", go into what the reviewers liked about the album or why they gave it such rankings. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've dropped something in. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeremy Clarkson's commentary on album itself belongs in this section; other info belongs in the "Sleeve design" section
Done, though this now causes a problem with the paragraph regarding the band member's opinions being a bit short per MOS:PARAGRAPH Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tour
  • Add a comma after "Brand X" in "Collins joined a side project, Brand X"
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Track listing
  • Who produced the tracks?
John Burns and Genesis of course ;-) [1] ... but more importantly, do we normally put this information in the "Track listing" section? (I can do, it's cited to Bowler / Dray in the body)
Yes, song producers should be mentioned Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A citation is needed for the song writers (album notes can be used if needed)
Done (there's conversation on the talk page, but the only reliably sourced information is "all of them") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the notes should be outside of quotation marks per MOS:REFPUNC
I think this is a problem with the template {{Track listing}} - what can you advise?
Not sure yet Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Certifications
  • The Gold BPI certification for this album is missing (enter key terms in search bar to find them)
I don't understand what you mean, sorry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you go to the URL, scroll down to "search by parameters", enter the album's name, and set it to search by title, you'll find a Gold certification from BPI. Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:21, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • One dead link
  • FN1: Per WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, user-generated reviews from Sputnikmusic shouldn't be used, and the red text next to this reviewer's name indicates it is by a user rather than a staff member
I haven't a clue about Sputnik, so I just defer it to a second opinion. Removed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN21: Gives a 404 error
This seems to have happened recently. I'll check Bowler / Dray as they have all the album chart cites. I need to buy a second hand copy of British Hit Singles and British Hit Albums to sort these things out. (I had them decades ago but gave them to charity shops long before I thought I would ever need them for a free encyclopedia project that didn't exist at that point. Anyway, I digress....) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...and now replaced by Bowler / Dray Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN22: "allmusic.com" should read AllMusic without italics, and "AllMusic" shouldn't be in article title
Oh bloody hell, there's always one I miss. Fixed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN32: Is "Daily Vault" a reliable source? Either way, it shouldn't be italicized or read "dailyvault.com"
Let's assume it isn't. I've trimmed this section down as who thought what about the album isn't that important Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN's 34 and 35: Missing work parameters
Done and done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN46: same as FN4
The article doesn't have a footnote numbered 46 anymore, but the only riaa.com I can now see is in a URL, so I think that's resolved. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall
  • Well-written?
  • Prose quality: Not the worst, but needs improvement
  • Manual of Style compliance: Not quite
  • Verifiable?
  • Reference layout: A few mislabeled refs
  • Reliable sources: Two subpar references
  • No original research: Non-working links make material harder to verify, and not everything is properly attributed to sources
  • Broad in coverage?
  • Major aspects: Needs some expansion
  • Focused: Almost
  • Neutral?: One concern
  • Stable?: Nothing of concern
  • Illustrated, if possible, by images?
  • Appropriate licensing: One incomplete FUR
Hang on, I missed that - which image was that? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relevance and captioning: One questionable audio sample and one questionable image
Thanks for the review - a good one as ever, lots of points raised, but nothing looks too onerous or taxing. I've picked through the easy stuff. Unfortunately, JG66 had the same idea and we edit conflicted. I will sort out the book source stuff later today. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)
Okay, I think everything's now been addressed, can you take another look? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two remaining issues:
  • UK certification should be included in lead as Genesis is a UK band
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption for audio sample needs to describe the song's composition
Done Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice article overall. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now passing :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Selling_England_by_the_Pound/GA1&oldid=890217526"