Talk:The Soft Parade/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 12:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, I'll review this soon. Quite like this album, though many seem to hate it. First thought, the 40th anniversary version also has differences in the songs that are not bonus tracks, perhaps that release and some details about it should be mentioned in-text? I see you've already done that in the LA Woman GA. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

 Fixed

• "Credits are adapted from the following liner notes" In other album articles I've reviewed, this was stated right under the personnel header, and not bolded.

 Fixed

• "newly established Elektra Sound West" Add "studio" for clarity.

 Fixed

• Comment - Hi, FunkMonk thank you for the review. I will find sources on the 40th anniversary edition of the album. Unfortunately, The Soft Parade does not get as much love as L.A. Woman when it comes to sources on reissues.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

All taken care of so far FunkMonk. Let me know if you have more for me to work on. No rush though.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, those were just initial thoughts, the rest is below. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

• "ultimately creating an album that lacks the unity found on the Doors' early works." Isn't this subjective editorialising? It would be better to state in text who made this statement.

 Fixed

• "were lackluster, putting his credibility as a serious poet and songwriter on the line" Also seems subjective, and not merely descriptive of the writing process, doesn't this belong under reception?

 Fixed

• ""The Soft Parade" displays his Southern roots through his portrayal as a preacher. The song's ambiance is heightened by the striking imagery which outlines a need for sanctuary, escape, and pleasure." This seems so specific and flowery that it could probably also need author attribution.

 Fixed

• The chart positions need citations.
• "previously unreleased songs "Whisky, Mystics, and Men" Isn't this also on the old Essential Rarities CD? Or are they different versions?

 Fixed

• "Oddly," This seems a bit unencyclopaedic in tone, also, it's pretty common to release singles prior to the full album?

 Fixed (explained)

• "like something written rather than something song" Sung?

 Fixed

• "best when getting it on straight and hard as witness to their first two albums" Is that really what the source says? Not "as witnessed on" or something? Looks odd...

 Fixed (this is what the text said)

• "had little time to compose new material." This is only stated specifically in the intro, which should have no unique info.

 Fixed

• "In an attempt to compensate for the lack of preparation" Likewise.

 Fixed

• "somewhat uneven album that lacks the smooth transition between songs evident in the band's earlier work" Likewise.

 Fixed

• "but it is still widely considered the group's weakest effort with Morrison." Likewise.

 Fixed

• "Three preceding singles" The article body says five.

 Fixed

• "Oddly, five songs (including the non-album track "Who Scared You") that are featured on The Soft Parade" How can this be including a non-album track?

 Fixed

• "awarding the Doors with another Top 10 hit." Not sure "with" is needed here, "awarding" also seems a bit hyperbolic...

 Fixed

• Comment - FunkMonk I made some more changes but wanted to discuss a few points before finishing. First off, thanks for reminding me of Essential Rarities, the web source was a little deceiving in its wording. I noted the singles struck writers as "odd" because the Doors never released that much material before the actual album. Also, could you point out where I wrote there were five preceding singles, perhaps you confused it with the sentence about five songs.

I cited the chart positions in the body; do they need them elsewhere? As for the description about the title track, I actually simplified it from the book. A whole chapter is dedicated to the song. Let me know what you think, thus far.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

As for the five singles, you say "Oddly, five songs that are featured on" in the article body, but "Three preceding singles" in the intro. Maybe it is not the same info you are conveying, but then it needs to be consolidated somehow so the intro and article body say the same, or says both. As for chart citations, I mean they should be cited in the table.[1] The changes look good, perhaps we could keep discussion about specific points immediately under them, and write "done" or such under fixed issues, so it will be easier to follow what is going on. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

FunkMonk I took your advice. I added a "fixed" icon to your points below for clarity. I did not what to claim they were fixed myself without your opinion first.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Looking good to me now, so will pass. Hope their other albums get the same treatment! FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)