Talk:Take Off Your Pants and Jacket/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC) I'll be back, just wanted to let you know I'm taking this review :D[reply]

Let's just get some stuff out of the way. We can get to the nitty-gritty of it later.

Sources used: Discogs is a user-built wiki and not acceptable. Unfortunately I notice it's used quite a lot (13 times). Fortunately, pretty much all of them are unnecessary (be careful; we can't list complete catalog information for all releases of an album). Other than that, though, sourcing seems to be okay.
Article history: Everything looks peaceful back there.
Images: Album cover is of low resolution and has sufficient fair use rationale. Image of symbols used on album packaging appears to have sufficient fair use rationale although is tagged as not having been provided one to start with; as I am neither a patroller nor an administrator it is not up to me to remove that tag. Both images used are relevant and captioned appropriately. Very nice.

And now time for the nitty-gritty

Lead

Mostly good, if a bit disorganized. We could rearrange this to flow a bit better.

Background

First paragraph dwells too much on the topic of the previous article; most of this detail can be trimmed (in particular I removed the description of the "All the Small Things" music video).
Second paragraph is, again, too prehistoric in terms of this album. Could easily be minimized and merged into the previous paragraph, because while some of this information is important I doubt such things as stage settings and the theme of the tour are going to have much of an effect on the rest of the article in the reader's experience.

Packaging

The quotation beginning "Highlight" does not follow from the rest of the sentence. The quote is not grammatically sound in this context.

Singles and promotion

I notice there's a lot of time spent describing the music videos. Since each single has its own article, is this really necessary? It's very well done here, but those three articles could use some improvement and this would be a great place to start. My suggestion: Migrate all the music video information into their respective articles, and leave none of it here.

Commercial performance

Some stale prose regarding redundant information. Charting information is already present later on in the article in table form, where it should be; we do not need to restate it so much here.
Sold 14 million copies worldwide as of when? This is a time-sensitive statistic.
"...the company 'ran out of money'." And then what happened?

Touring

I got rid of some stuff that isn't really important to the whole, things like the one date where they dropped in on that year's Warped Tour (one date as opposed to a significant leg of the tour isn't all that important).
The "regain their status at the top of the tree" feels like a direct quote, so it should be presented as one (or whatever wording he used; it's only acceptable by Wikipedia standards if it's a direct quote, but otherwise too informal).

Release History

Got rid of it wholesale. Again, the sources used were unreliable and the information as a whole was unnecessary.

See also

"Pop punk" is already mentioned in the infobox and does not need to be put here.

Whew! Sorry this took so long, I wasn't busy but it just took me this long to get it done. Until you post back here or edit the article or whatever I'm done here, so I'm putting this bad boy on hold for the time being.

19: 53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I’ve kept you waiting long enough. Anything else that needs work can be reserved for, say, the FA review process. This article now passes the Good Article Criteria. Congratulations!