Talk:The Immaculate Collection/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 22:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

I'll be reviewing this article. Time to get Into the Groove! Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:59, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Prose is well written. No obvious spelling or grammar errors.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead: Accurately summarizes article and length is reasonable.

Layout: Correctly formatted and in standard order. Structure is standard for album articles.

Words to watch: All words of praise are attributed. One WP:REALTIME reference (discussed lower).

Fiction: N/A

Lists: Usage is standard for album articles.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
References are correctly listed.
B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Statistics and opinions are held to a higher standard and should still be cited when in the lead. This includes sales, chart placements, and critics' rankings.

Could you please point out which statement that require citation in the lead? MOS:LEADCITE does not say that sales or chart placements need to have direct citation in the lead. Delicate (Taylor Swift song) is the most recent music Featured Article as example in this case. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted statistics rather broadly, but if it's not even checked for in FA, then I'm not going to hold you to it for GA. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It also remains the best-selling compilation album ever by a solo artist – The sources for this are from 2012. Do more recent sources exist to confirm that it is still true? Also, the word "remains" presents a WP:REALTIME issue, and the phrase "as of 2012" should be included (or preferably a more recent year if a more recent source can be found).

The sentence rephrased. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check on the reliability of sources raised concerns for the biography written by J. Randy Taraborrelli. Apparently he has a reputation for tabloid-style writing presented as biographies. Not a major issue as the book is not used for contentious material at any point, but I was curious about your thoughts on this.

That biography has been used in many many Madonna GA/FA articles. I haven't found any issue with it so far. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are otherwise comprehensive and reliable, primarily using web and scanned print news sources.
C. It contains no original research:
Citations are comprehensive, spot check suggests they are accurately represented by the article.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
No apparent violations. Score on WP:EARWIG test accounted for by attributed quotes.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
There's one major detail that seems to be missing. The article says that Minor alterations and additions have been applied to every track; for example, "Material Girl" has a new outro in place of the original fade-out. Pettibone also remixed "Into the Groove", "Like a Prayer", and "Express Yourself", which are significantly different from their original album versions. This should be elaborated on, as it leaves readers wanting on what sort of changes were made. Did these remixes change the songs beyond the use of QSound? Did any others have an entire segment changed like Material Girl did?

It was a completely new production, with entirely different instrumentation. I rephrased the sentence, but I couldn't find sources to further describe the details. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was also not able to find any obvious sources that discuss this after a quick search. The rewrite should be sufficient. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All other key areas (background, release, reception, performance) are covered.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
All details contribute to knowledge of the subject.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Discussion of praise and criticism accurately reflects reliable sources.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Recent edits are undisputed. Last discussion is from one month ago and users resolved the issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
Album cover is tagged as copyrighted and justification is listed. All other images are licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 or 3.0. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
I have to question the relevance of the Kenny Rogers image. He was not involved with the album, and he's only mentioned once in the article as a point of comparison.

All other images are relevant and suitably captioned.

I'm not so sure either with the image of Kenny Rogers. Removed for now. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
The article is on the Borderline of GA status, and I'm putting it on hold so improvements can be made. Feel free to Express Yourself if you have any thoughts about specific concerns. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluesatellite would you be responding to the comments? :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 17:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: seeing that Bluesatellite is probably busy in real life, I will try to get to some of the review comments by myself. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 18:51, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello guys, thank you so much for the attention and sorry for being late. I have addressed the reviews. :) Bluesatellite (talk) 01:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All concerns have been addressed, and it reads Like a Prayer. I'll pass the article now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]