Talk:Spoken For

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Spoken For/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose: clear and concise, correct spelling and grammar:

   What are Christian AC and INSPO charts?

   The "Composition" is just too chopped up and contradictory. Perhaps it would help to choose a few of the best sources and present their view. All those snips of quotes strung together don't really convey anything to the reader.

   The "Critical reception" needs copy editing. Also, it is a "wall of text" and far bigger than any other section. Can you cut it down and choose some of the clearest comments to quote? Perhaps also make it into two paragraphs if there is so much to put there.

   Also this quote is just too long and confused and probably should be removed, or at the very least paraphrased: "Russ Breimeier of Christianity Today praised the album for it cohesiveness, commenting that "[Almost There] was sort of an introduction for the band to a broader national audience, featuring a collection of songs drawn from Mercy Me's previous independent efforts. Although the songs were newly recorded for Almost There, it still was comprised of material written over a seven-year span. Naturally the songwriting varies greatly over that length of time. Spoken For, on the other hand, is a cohesive 11-track album of all new songs. It feels new and fresh with stronger songwriting than that found on Almost There. If you liked the previous album, I suspect you'll enjoy this one even more";[4] he further argued that "Even more impressive is the band's sound... Not that MercyMe sounds different or overproduced, but with the help of producer Pete Kipley, they suddenly sound like a solid roots rock band"

   The editor's job in the "Critical reception" section is to present a concise summary of the reception, not to argue or defend various views.

   B. Complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lede it says, "The album received positive reception from critics." However, under "Critical reception", it says "Critical reception to Spoken For was generally positive". Should give a more accurate summary of the reception in the lede.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Provides references to all sources:

   B. Provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   It seems in some places that the article is not neutral, but is defending the album too much.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Main aspects are addressed:

   B. Remains focused:

   Needs more specific comment on the music/lyrics than just giving it labels like roots rock or pop rock sound. What does this mean in regard to this album?

   Is there more about the lyrics besides the quotes from a band member. Who wrote the lyrics? (Did I miss that in the article?)

   Need to separate the religious message of the album from its musical qualities. Those are two different topics. Need to evaluate the lyrics and composition on a musical level.

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems a little to pro-album, rather than neutral and giving various viewpoints

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I will put the article on hold so the issues can be addressed.

MathewTownsend (talk) 23:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Prose

1. A.

   • Not sure what you mean there. I added the magazine the charts were published under, if that is what you meant.
   • I see what you mean - I streamlined the top paragraph and made a minor adjustment or two to the lower one.
   • I figure if a review is notable enough to be listed in the 'reviews' box, it should be described in the main section. I've removed some quotes.
   • Adjusted the section heavily.
   • I don't really see any POV pushing - the section notes what the reviewers said and their general consensus, nothing more.

   B.

   Fixed.

Coverage

1. I gave specific coverage - individual songs are noted, as well as descriptions for lyrical theme. Progressions from the previous album are noted throughout the page.

   Lyric writers are noted in the 'Track listing' section - I think the writers are important, but not sure how to note without inserting OR over the number of songs written by particular writers.

   I'm not sure where they aren't noted separately aside from the Millard quote.

POV

1. I'm not really sure what I can do there - the sources generally have a favorable view of the album.

• It's ok that the critics have a generally favorable view of the album. But "generally" indicates some did not. So those must be represented too. (I'll look at it all tomorrow - too tired now!) But it looks like you've done some good cleaning up! MathewTownsend (talk) 03:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

  I inserted that in the area it was not used, so I think that fixes it?

Reply

• What are Christian AC, and INSPO charts?
  • Still not sure what you mean. I've noted the journal the chart was published in.
• The first two sentences in "Background" start with "Regarding" - that is not good prose.
  • Changed
• Why is where the tracks were recorded under "Background"?
  • Changed it to Background and recording
• Under "Composition", you describe critical reaction. You don't say anything about how the songs were written, the musical elements, instruments used, keys etc. How the lyrics were written, etc.
  • Should be easy enough to fix.
• See Beautiful (MercyMe song), Word of God Speak and Homesick (MercyMe song) for some ideas regarding the elements of a music GA.
• I appreciate that there is little info available on the album, all your sources are very short and superficial and several are primary sources, ok for giving the interviewee's point of view, but not good for a critical evaluation.
  • I think I only had one or two interview sources - the rest come from reviews or whatnot. I'll do my best to improve, bu
• Here is an example of an album released in September 2011: What Were You Hoping For?

MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• ok, I believe the best has been done regarding this article, considering the little information available. I have made some edits. Please correct any mistakes![1]

Reevaluation after fixes

1. Well written?: Pass

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability?: Pass

6. Images?: Pass

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Spoken For. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/reviews/2002/spokenfor.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)