Talk:The Great Gatsby: Music from Baz Luhrmann's Film/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing for a review. Aoba47 (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@1989: Thanks for nominating this article. @Aoba47: Thanks for taking on this review. @My love is love: Pinging you just in case you are interested, since you have been a major contributor to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 00:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you everyone for putting all of the work into the article. I will have my comments up sometime during the weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Please provide ALT text for the infobox image and all of the images in the body of the article.
I am not a fan of the structure of the lead as it currently it stands. It reads like a list and feels very choppy, rather than coming together as a cohesive narrative. I would revise this further.
I do not believe that the citation in the lead is entirely necessary as that information should be found and already cited in the body of the article.
The phrase (The soundtrack includes new music) is a little bit of an odd phrasing as it would be assumed that this is all new music, as normally done for albums. At this point, it is not made clear that the soundtrack includes cover versions of songs so this sounds odd to me. If you want to include the part about "new music" make it clearer right away that the album contains a mix of both.
The introduction to the following sentence (Also featured are) is a little odd, and I think that this sentence could be strengthened.
The lead should include information about the other singles and the album's commercial performance and critical reception. I would also include a little from the "Background" section on how it connects to Luhrmann's imagined version of the Great Gatsby.
I am not certain about the use of the non-free images of several singers, as they do not necessarily bring anything new for the reader. The image of Jay-Z awkwardly cuts across the "Background" and "Production" sections and does not add much value to the article. The Beyonce and Lana Del Rey ones are appropriate placed and look nice, but I am again uncertain of their value in this article as they do not illustrate any particular point other than these people contribute to the album.
The phrase "as a press release puts it" is awkwardly shoe-horned into the sentence.
Please link F. Scott Fitzgerald in the "Background" section.
For the part "Jeymes Samuel (a.k.a. The Bullitts)", why not just use The Bullitts with the proper wikilink as I do not believe stating his real name adds anything to a reader's understanding of the material and seems a little like padding.
In the same sentence, I do not think that the introduction phrase (Luhrmann also revealed) is necessary. It is a little overly dramatic to say he "revealed" this information; just say that Luhrmann worked with or collaborated with this producer.
I have removed some unnecessary wikilinks (such as composer and film score) in the same section.
The "pitfalls" quote is rather unnecessary and can be paraphrased.
You should have a reference for the sentence in the audio sample.
Link A Little Party Never Killed Nobody (All We Got) on its first use in the article.
You link "Young and Beautiful" for the first time in the body of the article in the "Release and promotion" section, but it appears in the "Songs" section first and should be linked there instead.
You need more information on "Young and Beautiful" in the "Release and promotion" section, primarily information about its reception and commercial performance.
The infobox lists two other singles and you do not mention them in the same section. Please expand this section to include them with information about its reception and commercial performance.
Do we really need a blow-by-blow overview of when certain songs were released (the second paragraph of the "Release and promotion" section) as I am not sure that devoting so much space to it is necessary. Information about performances is definitely beneficial, but the other stuff borders on filler for me at least.
The "Commercial performance" section needs a massive update and expansion. You only include information about its performance and leave out its performance and certifications in other countries completely.
I like all of the content and resources in the "Critical reception" section, but it is very scattered right now and should be further revised to form a stronger and more cohesive narrative on the album's critical reception. The placement of some of the sentence is a little odd, such as putting the Metacritic sentence in the middle of the paragraph. I would highly recommend reviewing this resource for further guidance. I would also caution you about over-relying on quotes in this section.
Remove Jay-Z discography from the "See also" section. I understand you put it there as he served as a producer, but I still do not find it appropriate for use here.

Final comments

I apologize for the length of my review. I have noticed some pretty major problems in the area, particularly in the lead and the "Commercial performance" sections. I also find the use of the images to be unnecessary and boarding on padding the article rather than further illustrating a point to the reader. I understand that this article has been c/e, but I still take issue with some of the prose in this. I do think that this will take a lot more work as these are comments that I noticed from a rather brief run-through of the article. I can keep the review open, but I can also fail it if you would prefer to go at your own pace. Hope this helps. If you would like to go through with the review, I will provide a more detailed, second wave of comments after you address the above ones. Aoba47 (talk) 03:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I fixed everything except for the lead and the reception section. I'll get to it later today if I can. -- MCMLXXXIX 10:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "Commercial performance" section also still needs to be improved. You have done some work, but more is needed. Aoba47 (talk) 14:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Is there a GA soundtrack article that I could look at for reference? -- MCMLXXXIX 14:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All of the issues that I have raised in the above comments are not exclusively related to soundtrack articles. For instance, you can look at other GAs and FAs on albums to get the basic idea. The "Commercial performance" section only requires a little more work as it is fine right now for the most part, but the comments on the lead and reception section are not exclusively related to the soundtrack articles. I hope this helps as the article is taking more shape, but the "Lead" and "Reception" sections should be the focus on the revisions for now at least. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I re-did the lead. -- MCMLXXXIX 18:43, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the lead, so I would recommend focusing on giving more structure to the "Reception" section. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I re-did the structure of the reception section. -- MCMLXXXIX 19:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

Thank you for your patience during this review. Wonderful work with it. If you want to work on this further or bring it to FAC sometime in the future, I would still look at the prose (especially in the lead, as I admit my revision of it can be improved). Otherwise, you did a great job with this. ✓ Pass Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.