===General first thoughts===
Per WP:ITALICS, make sure that all titles of print sources are in italics. (eg. NME, Melody Maker, Q (note: not Q magazine)) Also, television shows (eg. Newsnight). I already changed some in the references as I was tweaking the citations last night. Make sure all song titles have quotation marks
- There are some short paragraphs which should either be expanded or combined with others to avoid having choppy, one or two sentence paragraphs.
- Okay will take a look. Could you highlight any sentences that you are particularly thinking of? --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The paragraphs in the "Lyrics" section, although as I have mentioned I'm not sure that the opinions of the band memebers and those of critics should go together. However, if you were keeping it like that, the para beginning "The album's lyrics deal with..." and the following one need not be separated.
- "Richey Edwards attended recording sessions for the album..." and "Bradfield has described the recording of the album..." seem like they could be part of one paragraph.
- "Whilst touring in 1994, the band visited army surplus stores..." and the following one, "A performance of "Faster" on the BBC's Top of the Pops..." - these are both about the clothing, so could be one paragraph
- The "touring" section - these are all short paragraphs about the same topic, I don't think they need to be separate.
- "10th Anniversary Edition" section - these could all be one paragraph
- I'm concerned that much of the information reads as a bit jumbled. Certainly chronologically. While it may not always be necessary to group information strictly chronologically, I do think that the structure of this article needs some work. I'll try to be more specific as I go through.
- Okay that would be good. I haven't changed the overall structure very much since I found the article. Will have a think, but I am already fairly sure that I think chronological ordering would be poor style for an article about a cultural product, so let me know if you're not able to live with that. In any event, can you point to particular information you think is out of place? --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm certainly open to ideas. The usual format for album articles, in my experience, is to have a background section (whatever it's called, something about the conception of the album, the writing etc) combined with, or followed by section on recording/production. Then, release details are usually mentioned, perhaps with chart performance/accreditation (although this could come later), followed by critical reception. Analysis of style, genre, music etc. could be a separate section at some point. I don't believe that formats should necessarily be set in stone just for the sake of it, and if improvements can be made, then that's great. However, certain standards develop across articles on similar topics, and I do think it's important to have a certain degree of consistency. There is some guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums. Have you written other articles on albums? Have you looked at some other FA and GA articles for comparison? As I say, I am open to new ideas, but at the moment, I don't think that the article flows as it should. --BelovedFreak 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Some more citations are needed throughout. At least every paragraph should have one, unless it's very clear that the info is from a nearby citation. Your personnel info needs a source, as well as single chart performance.
- Don't want to come across as too combative, but paragraphs without citations seem to be fairly common in Featured Articles. I hit random FA and this article came up. You can see that two out of four paragraphs in the first section after the lead are unsourced and lower down whole sections are unsourced.
- Don't worry, you're not coming across as combative at all. Saying every paragraph should have one, that's just a kind of guideline I try to use when writing. Basically, all the information needs to be verifiable. If it's quite clear that the information comes from the same place as some other information close to it, then it's not a problem. As for Acetic acid, I think the article needs more citations. It was promoted in 2005, and FA standards have risen since then. Also, I'm not familiar with chemistry articles, it's possible that some of that info is considered common knowledge or easily verifiable, I don't know.
- I am happy to provide additional sourcing if I can, though. You'll need to tell me where you think it is needed. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, if you include quotes in the lead, I would recommend citing them there, even if they are cited lower down as well. This is not required, and editors do vary in how much they cite in the lead. Some give as many citations as they would anywhere, some don't cite at all. I think that you don't really need citations as everything will appear later on anyway, and be cited, but it's good for contentious statements or direct quotes.
- "The album peaked at #6 on the British albums chart in 1994."
- The paragraph that begins "Interviewed at the time of the album's release..." - it's clear that this all comes form one source; I would move the citation to the end of the paragraph. It doesn't need to be in the middle of that first sentence.
- ""She Is Suffering" was produced by Steve Brown." - unless this is in one of the previous citations, in which case, move it to the end of the portion that it is supporting. Also, is it necessary for the previous sentence to have three cites? Is there one sources that will cover the whole thing?
- "The album features audio recordings from..." - ideally this para should have a source although you could argue that it's easily verifable. Likewise the DVD info. This stuff should be in a reliable source somewhere. If it's not, some might even argue that if it's not been covered in secondary sources, it's not notable info. I'm not going to insist on sources for this info, but it's something to think about.
- Singles information (release dates, chart position)
- Personnel - this should be easy to cite, either from the details provided with the album, or from allmusic.
- Album release date - this needs a source, needs to be mentioned in the main body of the article, and at the moment, the date is different in the lead from in the infobox, so that needs fixing.
Infobox
Per {{Infobox album}}, we no longer list review summaries in the infobox. If still desired, a box can be inserted instead into the reception section (see {{Album ratings}}). If used, each review rating should have a citation between <ref> tags rather than just the [link]s that we used to use.
I see some more inforamtion has been added just today. Is the article pretty much in a finished state as far as your concerned (pending suggestions here, I mean). Or have you more stuff to add?
No stuff in particular that I am planning to add (although let me know if you think an obvious topic is missing). --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
- Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should summarise the main points of the article. At the moment, this one doesn't. Not all of the manual of style needs to be followed exactly for GA criteria, but WP:LEAD does.
- Okay will look at this, but it would be useful to know if you are thinking of any additonal information in particular from the body which you would have expected to see in the lead. --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I do think some more work needs to be done on the article as a whole, I will comment more on this later, but I would expect the main points to be covered. Eg. a summary of what reviewers thought in general, chart performance etc. As I say, this will become clearer as the article develops--BelovedFreak 11:10, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- At the moment, I'm a little concerned that the lead is not completely neutral. This should be addressed by expanding the lead to summarise critical reception, but even if ther are no negative reviews, just including a quote describing it as a "work of genius" is a little unbalanced. It would be better to make more general statements about whether reviews were generally positive or negative. If (and I haven't read that far yet) the fact is that the album was universally acclaimed, that of course can be mentioned, but just having one quote from one source in the lead concerns me. (Also because of WP:UNDUE; ie. why should NME be the one to set the tone for the article?)
Why is Edwards called Richey James Edwards? Later he is just Richey Edwards, and that's what the article about him is called. Unless he was commonly known by all three names, there's no need to have his middle name here, it's not an obituary.
Reason is that he is commonly known as Richey James and also as Richey Edwards (Richey James Edwards is his full name). On the sleeve of this record, for example, he is Richey James. The former name is not a shortening but perhaps something more like a stage name. Wikipedia seems to have settled on the idea that Edwards is preferred, but I thought using the full name on first appearance in the article might be appropriate and helpful to people who have only heard of Richey James. Perhaps "(aka Richey James)" could be used instead or a footnote or something. -FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining that, I wasn't aware that he also went by Richey James. You are right that both should be mentioned, but I think it would be better with either of those two alternatives. Either with parentheses or with a footnote since (from what I understand) he wasn't known commonly, or artistically, as Richey James Edwards.--BelovedFreak 11:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Critical reception
- I am surprised to see this section at the beginning of the album. Generally, there is information about the background, writing, recording etc. of the album, then release, then how it was received. That way, it's in chronological order. I found it a little confusing to read what critics thought about the album before really knowing anything about the album. I suggest moving it down to above the touring section. Have a look at other album FAs and GAs to compare. Hard Candy (Madonna album) is a recently promoted one.
- Will look at some other articles, but I've already told you what I think about ordering everything chronologically. I would tend to prefer ordering the article in order of how important or useful the information is. If the reader dies halfway through, what do they miss? --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But who decides which is the most important or useful information? :) Have a look at some others. It would be helpful if you could point to an example where the structure is different, for me to compare.--BelovedFreak 11:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This section is called "critical reception", but only a small part seems to be about critical reception. You have viewer/magazine reader polls, what a band member thought about it, and chart performance. The section would probably be better renamed as just "Reception" and I would consider moving James Dean Bradfield's opinion of the album elsewhere, since it's not really about how the album was received by others.
- Okay will rename the section and look it Bradfield's opinion can be moved. --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We could really do with some summaries of more reviews. GA only requires that the article is "broad in coverage", not comprehensive, so as you have touched on critical reception, this could scrape by as "broad". However, looking at the reviews listed in the infobox, there are several more that could be used.
- Try to summarise the reviews a little more in terms of what they thought overall, rather than just one quote. For example, with Melody Maker, I'm not even sure whether the reviewer liked it or not, only that they saw it as a work by Richey Edwards, and that it sounds like "a group in extremis". Is that good? The Sputnikmusic review can be used, as it's a staff review, Allmusic can, Stylus can. The 10th anniversary ones can be too. Rolling Stone would be a good one.
- Okay. I'll look again at the MM review. Quoted this and the NME review more for the contrasting view on who is the primary "creator" of the album, which I found to be interesting. Will also look at other reviews, but would prefer to source reviews mainly from the time of release if I can. --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since the article gives the impression that the album was well thought of, are there any negative reviews to balance it out?
- AFAIK no significant negative reviews. However, think it may be possible to find reviews that have reservations along the lines of it not being exactly a record to relax to. --FormerIP (talk) 23:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be good if you could find something like that. It would help the reader get more of a sense of what kind of album it is, if they haven't heard it.--BelovedFreak 11:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The sentence about chart performance needs a citation. Also, it would be nice (although probably not required for "broad in coverage" if there was any info about how if performed in other countries. Just a thought.
Lyrics
- I'm not sure about the title of this section, as it's not just about lyrics. I think it would be better named "background" or something else. This should definitely come before reception, though.
- Will think about this. I seems to be that the section is about the lyrics except the part that is about Edwards' personal problems, which seems to me to be of obvious relevance for this section. Or...it could be that the nature of the lyrics and why the state of mind of one of the lyricists is relevant is not made sufficiently clear in the article (?). --FormerIP (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There seem to be bits of critical reviews seeping in to this section. I can see why, as they discuss what the album is about, but again, the timescale is disrupted because chronologically, the album hasn't been released at this point, so I'm not sure if it works having bits of reviews mixed in the background. I shall think some more about this.
- Okay, we're on the chronology thing again. I'll also have a nice long think about this. Seems to me that, in a section about the lyrics of the album, a characterisation of the lyrics is appropriate, but it needs sourcing from somewhere (prime candidate: album review). --FormerIP (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recording and sound
"The album was recorded by the band and Alex Silva..." - it's not clear who Alex Silva is or why he/she is involved. A musician on the album? Producer? Mixer? (It becomes a little clearer later, but this needs to be upfront)- "According to Sean Moore, the band felt ..." - this seems to be more about the writing of the album, not the recording. It seems a bit out of place here. In fact, it should probably be one of the first things mentioned in the article. (After the lead...)
"Richey Edwards would "collapse on the settee and have a snooze"" - who's words are these?"Sound engineer Silva" - Sound doesn't need a capital letter
Track listing
- The formatting isn't right. The last few titles don't use the # symbol. Also, there are some spaces missing around brackets.
References
- Some of these citations are missing information for WP:V. For example, there are a few magazine articles used that are missing article titles, page numbers or authors
- Will look at these and try to add missing info if possible. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a dead link to Rolling Stone. They recently changed their website making much of it unavailable without paying, but you should be able to find the link using the Internet Archive (I've found all the RS ones I've looked for there.)
That's it for now. I haven't finished reviewing as such, but I'd like to see what you can do from the above suggestions before I make more comments. Feel free to ask any questions or comment if you disagree with any of the above.--BelovedFreak 18:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks. Quick note: you removed the word "to" from "...visits by the band to former concentration camps at Dachau and Belsen", but this was wrong, IMO, so I'm reverting. Reason is that Dachau and Belsen are not, strictly speaking, concentration camps, but German towns (Belsen is more like a village, I think). You will see that this is reflected in the naming of the WP articles (Dachau v Dachau concentration camp. --FormerIP (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
b (MoS): 
b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
