User talk:Aselevos/sandbox
Article Evaluation
[edit]blah blah blah [1]
Notes
[edit]Hi, I went ahead and made some changes.
- Firstly, I removed the section about the artist's background, as that's not really necessary for the article since he already has an article. It's just a bit redundant otherwise.
- I noticed that one of the sources was Wikipedia - be careful of this, as Wikipedia cannot source itself.
- In the background section you wrote that the album seems to be "inspired by transgendered icons such as Octavia St. Laurent, as the album cover art features an androgynous model". You must attribute this to the source material, otherwise it's seen as original research. Basically, you need to write it as "In a November 2013 article Complex magazine listed the album's cover as one of the "50 Best Pop Album Covers of the Past Five Years", also stating that Hynes was "inspired by transgender icons, like Octavia St. Laurent while he was wrapping production on the LP". This attributes the claim to a specific outlet, which will help with concerns like that. You can use the sentence I wrote above, if you like.
- You also need to make sure to attribute opinions to specific outlets as well, especially if they come from reviews. Not attributing this can also come across as original research, as opinions on music are extremely subjective - what sounds good to one may not to another. Another unintended side effect of not attributing reviews is that unattributed opinions can make an article appear non-neutral.
The only other concern I had was over a comment about a tentative result, as this was pretty vague. You need to specify what this is about, such as poor sales.
Other than this, the article looks like it's ready to merge into the existing article. When you do this, make sure that you move the content in small edits, as this will make it easier to go back if you make a mistake somewhere with the move. (This can happen to just about anyone, honestly.) Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
--Notes--
Right off the bat, the formatting of this page is much more inviting than the Live version. I think the categories you came up with are appropriate and generally what I looked for in a music page.
That being said, the information in the categories could be flushed out a bit more. In your Music section, more citations would be helpful. Your first sentence of this section has also the exact same information as the Genre section in right hand column. If you can't find a place to cite that this music is all of those genres, then I would just leave it in the right hand category where it can be freer of citation.
Next, if you have more information about the music video, I would add it. For instance, rather than just saying "in the music video",something along the lines of "a music video was produced by Columbia Records (making this up) and directed by Alfred Hitchcock. It follows Blood Orange and a woman..." you feel? If you could find out even more about the creative process and what went into the music video, it could even be it's own section.
Lastly, I have always been a fan of the right hand column, especially in music pages. Generally when an album is big enough, the right hand column will also display various reviews from sources, as an example go down to the Critical Reception portion of this page, DAMN. I'm sure that Coastal Grooves was reviewed by many outlets (it had to get a metacritic score after all), so I think this section definitely has the room and potential for improvement. I liked that you include specific quotes from reviews and can't imagine more of that would hurt. But if you're going to use a number rating system, like you did with Metacritic, than you have to do that also for Pitchfork, as well as the quote, even if you don't agree with it.
For what it's worth, I think this article is off to a good start. I'm confident there is enough information out there to fill in the content gaps. And remember to play around with formatting! So many cool things can go into right hand columns!