Talk:Shin-shiro/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 22:19, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Prosperosity: Comments

Lead

Could you put material from the "Background and development" and "writing and production" sections?

Done for the writing section, but there's already content from background section, isn't there? 'the band's first album after relocating to Tokyo and moving to Victor Entertainment's main roster'.
Background and development

"Sakanaction was first formed...performed well on College Radio Japan Sapporo." I don't see how this is relevant to this article.

It's one of the two reasons that pushed the band's initial popularity. I can remove it if you'd like, however.

What makes "Rockin' on Japan" or "Excite" reliable sources?

They're both music magazines (one also a print magazine), and these are both interviews with the band. Could you explain what your concerns are?

Writing and production

This first paragraph is too long for my taste.

Split into three.

"despite having just finished" not "finishing"

Done.

There's a lot of repetition of "worked with" and "worked on"

Fixed.

"Ejima found difficulty in recording demos due to the difficulties" Repetition

Fixed.

"it was inevitable that one person would take charge" On what? The song? the whole album?

Fixed.

"This was not true for "Human"…" Although I see why you didn't, this is an exception. So I would put that "there were two exceptions" before both. However, you can say, "This pattern was not true for "Human".

Fixed.

For this section, I would split it into subheadings, such as "Composition and recording" "Location" and "Title"

Done, but I'm not sure about the third split. The title content is different, but only one paragraph long.

Make sure there's a clear organization for each paragraph as well.

Which paragraphs do you think need to be altered?

"The band thought of the aspects of…to be able to the entirety of the band's sound." Clunky--perhaps "Taking note of the musical style of "Sen to Rei", the band created songs that showcased the other genres they performed in order to expose new listeners to the entirety of the band's sound.

Fixed.

" 'The song Ame (B)'…" no comma between "song" and "that"

Fixed.

Queen's dance music "era" is a bit too far-reaching for something that really didn't last that long--just "Queen's 1980's dance music" would suffice.

Fixed.

Just checking--"old style cool" is a direct quote, no?

A figurative but literal translation of “ダサカッコイイ”っていうのを常に狙ってて。, so yes and no? I've added more context to the statement.

I'm not sure if a "heavy metal war march" is a particular thing…

I've split the ideas in two.

The whole last paragraph, beginning with "in a retrospective interview…", could better be used in other sections--the retrospective interview part could go in the reception section under a subsection titled "retrospective", while the commercial success stuff belongs in the "promotion and release" section.

Fixed.

Also, in the last sentence, how could it be unambiguously commercially successful if it sold 30,000 copies? Is this a lot for Japan or something? If it is, forgive my ignorance. :)

It's okay-ish, but its inclusion was meant to show how the band felt about the mid-range sales. I've added more context to clarify this, how's that?

Promotion and release

Even though this says that "Native Dancer" is the lead track on the album, this is directly contradicted by the track listing.

Lead track as in the leading promotional track, not the first track. I've searched though other pages on here and apparently some use 'lead track' to mean the first track, while others mean the song all of the promotion is put into. I clarified which one I meant.

In the last sentence of this section, replace "however" with "but they"

Done.

Critical reception

The sound files could be placed later in the section--up here, what would be more helpful is a box using Template:Album ratings, listing reviews and scores, i.e. the ones in Tonight: Franz Ferdinand, El Camino (The Black Keys album), and Not Your Kind of People, among countless other articles.

Albums get reviewed in Japan differently; either your album gets a glowing review or no review at all (unless the subject has been dead for years, then it's okay to criticise people). Unless a reviewer outside of Japan (or Rolling Stone Japan for some reason) talks about the release, it would just be a box of '(publication) - favourable' a bunch of times.

Wait, so there are multiple reviews from one publication?

One is a review of their next album, in which the reviewer talks a lot about Shin-shiro for some reason.

"Mio Yamada of Vibe" repetition of feel/felt in this sentence.

Fixed.

In "commercial reception", the album you mention by name is Night Fishing—was this just a typo or something?

Whoops!

Track listing

You should probably put "all music and lyrics written by Ichiro Yamaguchi".

I would if it were, but Minnanouta was written collaboratively.

Do the other members of the band not get credited with writing or even co-writing any?

Yamaguchi writes the lyrics and music, while everyone works together on the song arrangements, which are never considered writing by JASRAC (the division between 歌詞／作曲(lyrics/music) and 編曲(arrangement)).

Because one of them is listed as written by Sakanaction as a whole, put "except where noted" in that top sentence.

The sentence is generated by 'all_lyrics =', can it be altered?

Just out of curiosity, why are some of the official titles in Japanese and others in English?

Have a look at the Japanese page. It's a stylistic notion in Japanese that you can write titles in different English scripts, to the point where TITLE, Title and title are all seen as stylistically important enough that they get replicated every time the thing is mentioned.

References

According to Checklinks, there are no deadlinks. However, ref 8 changes path--just make sure that it's still the same ref with the same information. Because I don't read Japanese, I can't check that for you. :)

Excite recently decided to shut down, but it was there when I wrote the article! I've web archived it.

So not too much before I can pass! Nice work. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's this version? Anything else I should focus on? --Prosperosity (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks pretty good. I'm not familiar with Japanese sources, so I didn't know that they were reliable. I think keeping the background stuff is helpful--at least it couldn't hurt. Take a look at the track listing sentence--perhaps it can be changed, but I don't know. Look at Nevermind and In Utero for examples. Nevertheless, I can pass now. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 16:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: