Talk:The Good Will Out/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 15:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer (the GA Bot doesn't notify nominators when I start a review because of this) - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting an independent copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria.

Nominators and interested users are free to response however they wish - inserting responses directly under each point I make is probably the best way, but please do whatever suits you. The thing that can get problematic is if someone other than me ticks off my query points as done and/or crosses out my text. If you have done something, please say so under my query, but allow me to check and make the decision as to if it is done or not - that way I know what I have checked and what I haven't. SilkTork (talk)

Passed as Good Article. SilkTork (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for detailed criteria

Is it well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, understandable, without spelling and grammar errors:

B. Complies with MoS guidance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain media such as images, images, video, or audio to illustrate the topic?
A. Media are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Media are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No edit wars. Appears stable. SilkTork (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The one image in the article complies with policies and guidelines. SilkTork (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is neutral and factual. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is clearly written, engaging, and easy to understand. SilkTork (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is informative without going into undue depth, though the "Composition and lyrics" section does push this a little. It is just within the bounds of focused relevance, though teeters a little at times with a sense of just going over the edge of what is genuinely encyclopedic and into what might be trivia or detail just for detail's sake. There isn't quite enough information to justify splitting out into a stand alone article, but there may be some value in questioning just how useful info such as "Initially, the song was called "Shallow Time", had a saxophone, and a section in 6/8 time." is to the general reader. As part of future article development, consider explaining why that information is relevant, or remove it. SilkTork (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Details and info that a reasonable reader would expect in such an article are all present. SilkTork (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Article is richly and appropriately cited. SilkTork (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've encountered nothing that appears like original research - article follows sources appropriately. SilkTork (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've not encountered signs of copyvio, and the article passes Earwig's tool: [1]. SilkTork (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

The lead should summarise the main points in main body of the article. The first section, "Background", has information regarding the forming of the band, which is abruptly summarised in the lead as "After finalizing their line-up, and acquiring manager Tony Perrin,...". The "Background" section contains relevant material to the creation of the album, and as such is appropriate to the article and to GA criteria. So that information should be more appropriately summarised in the lead. Example: Embrace were formed in 1993 by vocalist Danny McNamara and his brother, guitarist Richard McNamara; by 1996 they had acquired Mike Heaton on drums and Steve Firth on drums, and Tony Perrin had become their manager. A single, "All You Good Good People", was released through Fierce Panda Records in February 1997, which attracted music media and record label interest, resulting in the band signing to Hut., which could replace "After finalizing their line-up, and acquiring manager Tony Perrin, Embrace released "All You Good Good People" through Fierce Panda in February 1997. Soon afterwards, the band signed to Hut. " SilkTork (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead should have a brief summary of the "Recording" and "Composition and lyrics" sections. Some attention could be paid to how much of the material in "Composition and lyrics" belongs in "Recording". The details about the orchestra appears to me to be the sort of information that conventionally appears in a "Recording" section. SilkTork (talk) 12:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- "Critical reception" has a balanced and nuanced approach to the album's immediate and later critical response which is not appropriately summarised in the lead by "The Good Will Out received generally favourable reviews from critics, some of whom praised the high-quality songwriting." For example, there are three comparisons to Oasis in "Critical reception", though Oasis is not mentioned in the lead. Also, while dealing with the "Critical reception", there has been a move in recent years to separate contemporary reviews from legacy reviews - this helps avoid awkward statements such as "Reviewers described The Good Will Out as a Britpop and post-Britpop album", which gives the odd appearance that the album was considered both Britpop and post-Britpop on release. That statement should perhaps read something like: "On release reviewers described The Good Will Out as a Britpop album; it has since been regarded by some reviewers as a post-Britpop album". SilkTork (talk) 13:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

Pass/Hold/Fail

This is a useful and informative article on one of my favourite albums. My wife and I felt at the time of release of this album that Embrace would become "the next big thing" - sadly that didn't happen. Anyway, it appears to me that the article meets GA criteria apart from the requirements for the lead (which is a surprisingly common event). I've made notes above which indicate what I feel needs to be done. Always open to discussion, and always willing to help out. Anyway, on hold for now until concerns are resolved. SilkTork (talk) 13:40, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilkTork: I've made the changes. It is one of my favourite albums from the 1990s; their 2014 self-titled album (not to be confused with another self-titled album by a band with the same name) is a really strong latter-day effort if you haven't kept up with them. MusicforthePeople (talk) 14:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not really kept up with them, but we did see them here in Southampton in 2018. It did feel like a nostalgia gig - almost every song was from The Good Will Out. Kinda sad really. Good gig though. SilkTork (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as Good Article. Well done. SilkTork (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]