Talk:The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill/GA2

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: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 18:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Great album. This looks a pretty decent article at first glance - I'll add a detailed review below in the coming days. Good luck! — sparklism ^hey! 18:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First look

Just had a real quick skim through and noticed a couple of things:

User:Ucucha/duplinks shows a few repeat links that should be amended
Ref 72 is dead

I'll post a more detailed review soon. Thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 19:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the dead link. I cant get the script to work on my browser. Could you point out the repeated links? Dan56 (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even better, I've gone through and removed them myself :)

That said, a case could be made for these two to remain, since they do add a bit of context to a casual reader skimming through the article. What's your view on this? — sparklism ^hey! 15:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're essential, except "Refugee All-Stars", which I'll replace with [Fugees]. Dan56 (talk) 15:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed review

Background

I'm a bit confused around the timelines here - was the Score tour before or after the "late 1996" date of Wyclef's solo album beginnings? It would be great if there was a date to contextualise the first sentence and clarify this
Was the tour actually named 'The Score Tour', or were the band simply "touring to promote The Score?
Either way, it might be useful to wikilink to The Score (Fugees album) somewhere to help with context
This pregnancy, along with several other circumstances, would inspire her to make a solo record which would eventually become The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. → "Her pregnancy and other circumstances inspired Hill to begin work on a solo album." - what do you think?
In late 1996, fellow Fugee member.. It's either "fellow Fugees member" or "fellow Fugee" (I prefer the former)
to which Hill produced several songs... → "on which..."?
guest verses and vocals Aren't these one and the same?
After the album's completion Which album are we talking about here?
This pregnancy, however, would renew Hill's creativity, as she would recall in an interview I can't help but think the tense is wrong here - The pregnancy renewed Hill's creativity, as she recalled...
I'm not 100% convinced we need to link to attic here, but I'm not precious about it
writing and producing the "A Rose is Still a Rose"
I think it's better to say "the lead single from the album of the same name", to avoid repeating the word 'of'
Having now written songs for artists in gospel, hip hop and R&B - again the tense thing; there's probably no reason to use the word 'now'
We should link those genres, as it's the first time they're mentioned (and then de-link the later instances of them)

I copy-edited the section to rectify the above issues. Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recording

We've already introduced Bob Marley as "reggae musician Bob Marley", is it necessary to say that again here?

Ditto. Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music & lyrics

Sentences 3-5 (starting ""When It Hurts So Bad" is musically old roots reggae..." don't have any sources, or are these all sourced by ref #24?

Yes. Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where we first encounter D"Angelo, we should be given some context for who he is (even if it's just 'R&B singer D'Angelo')
The second paragraph seems to be repeating some things we already learned in the 'background' section. I wonder if these could be merged back there? (That section could even become a "Background and composition" section, but I appreciate that that might require quite a lot of reworking, and it's pretty OK as is)

I removed "The majority of The Miseducation‍ 's lyrics were written in Hill's attic during her first pregnancy", but the rest is discussed in reference to specific songs. Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

encouraged her to abort this pregnancy, as to not conflict with her blossoming career. → "encouraged her to abort the pregnancy, so as to not conflict with her career" - I think that says it simpler.
Is there a better way to introduce Ras Baraka than putting the brackets there?
"kids" → "children"
Should we wikilink Carter G. Woodson?

All done. Dan56 (talk) 22:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

I'm not sure 'rave' is the right term here (though I see that's what the source reports) - perhaps 'positive' is a better choice?

"Highly positive"? Dan56 (talk) 21:59, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also not comfortable with the most acclaimed album of 1998. Although this again is reported in the source given, it could be easily disproven by a quick web search (it ranks at #7 here, for example). I think perhaps we ought to say some thing like it was one of the most acclaimed... - what do you think?

I attributed the source in-text. besteveralbums.com doesn't appear reliable. Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to the album as The Miseducation here; elsewhere it is called The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. We should be consistent - the full title works for me, and should be used throughout

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure "diffuse" is the correct term when referring to running time (at least to my British English anyway)

replaced. Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can we wikilink 'samples'?

done. Dan56 (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

There's nothing here about the release (dates, formats etc.) Are there any sources that could be used to write a half-paragraph about this?

IDK about formats; it was released in the CD era lol. I made note of the release date. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

on sales of 422,624 → with sales of.... (although again this might be my BrEng)
I don't know what The album's debut broke the record for first-week sales... means - can you clarify/simplify?
In less than a month, the album had sold one million copies. Is this in the US or worldwide?
We could maybe link Grammy Awards here (and de-link later)
including nearly 700,000 in Canada, by August. Which year?

1999, which is noted in the preceding sentence. I clarified/fixed the rest. Dan56 (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tour

So the tour was two nights at Budokan, then one date in the UK, then 20 US dates and a return to Japan? Nowhere else? (I don't know, I'm just asking - seems like an odd tour)
We should say she returned to Japan (perhaps to complete the tour)

Done. I added a brief paragraph explaining why the tour was so short. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades

We have a page for NAACP Image Award, so we should link to it
At the Annual Billboard Music Awards, The Miseducation won for R&B Album of the Year, while at the 20th Billboard Music Awards... Is this the same thing?
I made a minor formatting change in this section

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

Due to the large success of the album, Hill became a national media icon → "Following the success of the album, Hill became..."

Revised. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's "hip-hop" and there's "hip hop" - we should use one throughout the article

The quotes use "hip-hop" but as an adjective, which explains the hyphen. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In 2012, it was included What was included?

Revised. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It brought neo soul to the forefront of popular music → It helped bring...?

Opinion attributed. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"R & B" → R&B, as that's what's been used before

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Track listing and Personnel

There are no references here. Can I suggest {{Cite AV media notes}}?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

I see that there are three sources used in the lead. While I'm aware that this doesn't contravene any guidelines, it does feel slightly untidy (to me, at least). Could the statements that these sources are relating to be merged into the main body of the article? Ref #1 could go in the "Music & lyrics" section, and #2 and #3 in the "Release and reception" section, for example

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good way to 'introduce' Rohan Marley, so the casual reader would know who he is?

"entrepreneur". Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we are linking The Mis-Education of the Negro here, we should link it where it is mentioned later in the article

Done. Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

lyric themes and genre variance → "lyrical themes and musical variety"?

Revised. Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary

Sorry this review is becoming slightly drawn out - I'm a bit busy IRL this week. I promise I'll get to do a proper detailed review in the next few days - thanks for your patience! — sparklism ^hey! 15:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've run out of time right now, but I'll get back to this again. Apologies, again - thanks! — sparklism ^hey! 20:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's another load of things I spotted. There may be more to come, but this is a pretty solid article already. Good work, keep it up! — sparklism ^hey! 20:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already mentioned, truly sorry this has taken me so long. That's all I can see for now - thanks again for your patience! — sparklism ^hey! 20:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple of closing points:

The article could do with a proper copy edit - maybe the folk at WP:GOCE could help
The article is quite quote-heavy - perhaps some of these could be paraphrased into prose (particularly if you're looking at a future FA)

I don't think that these things detract from the article meeting the GA criteria, and I'm happy to pass this now. Well done! — sparklism ^hey! 13:34, 7 October 2015 (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.