Talk:A Very Gaga Holiday/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: J Milburn (talk · contribs) 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to offer a review. Doesn't look too controversial! J Milburn (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The EP consists of jazz cover versions sung by Gaga of Christmas classics like "Orange Colored Sky and "White Christmas", the later included an extra verse introduced by Gaga. Other songs present were acoustic versions of "You and I" and "The Edge of Glory", both from the singer's second studio album, Born This Way (2011)." Firstly, is "Orange Colored Sky" really a Christmas classic? Secondly, these are all of the songs on the EP. You shouldn't imply that there are others. You mean latter, not later, and the sentence structure is very difficult to follow.
    • These are all of the songs, well I do not think the sentence implies to the contrary does it? Were did you get the impression of a fifth track?
      • Yes, it does imply to the contrary. "Christmas classics like ... other songs present were"; this implies that there were other "Christmas classics", and leaves open the possibility that there were other non-Christmas classics. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "One group of reviewers" What does this mean?
  • "She describes a white snowman, to whom she is telling that Santa Claus is on his way to meet him. In the end she finished by saying "Okay, so I suppose it's not very white outside yet."" Is this from the verse or the interview? The writing isn't great.
    • This has been rephrased, although I'm open to any suggestion from you.
  • "On November 23, 2011, it was announced that both songs were included on a digital EP titled A Very Gaga Holiday" This is a slightly ridiculous claim as the EP had already been released at that point.
  • Could we have something in the article body about the non-US release?
    • What do you mean? Just iTunes links from other markets?
      • No, I want you to say somewhere in the article that it was released outside the US and when. At the moment, you only mention the US release. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When was this actually recorded? Are the songs just recordings from the TV special?
    • The special as well as the digital recordings show that it was from the special a the Convent of the Sacred Heart. Do you think that since its a live recording it is not feasible to add a studio?
      • If there is a studio, you should include it. From reading the article, I wasn't clear- that's a problem. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • There was no studio recording, it was on spot at CSH. That is mentioned though in the credits. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "consists of full-throated vocals and is a complete jazz rendition of the song" Odd tone, seems not-so-neutral
    • I have rephrased this can you please check?
  • ""You and I" is stripped off all the musical arrangements present in Born This Way" Unclear
    • I guess it means that the version on the EP does not contain the musical arrangements from the album.
      • "Stripped" is colloquial, and, in any case, you mean stripped of, rather than stripped off, surely. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Beware of overlinking. Verse, snowman, instrumentation, piano, trumpet and probably others should be stripped away.
  • " and features instrumentation from a piano and a trumpet, which is played halfway through the song. From time to time, Gaga shouted the word "America" while singing the song" Tense switch
  • I'm not sure I'm a fan of the blockquote. Links within quotes should be avoided, and from the context, it's clear that when the reviewer says "Howard Stern", they don't mean the person, they are referring to a show
    • I have rephrased it to passive voice and removed the bit about Howard Stern, seems WP:UNDUE.
  • "for the fans only" Gaga's fans?
  • "saying that although with similar themes, Bush's endeavor appeared stronger." Clumsy
  • "for the issue dated December 3, 2011" Issue of what? That may work with the Billboard charts, but not with others
  • What makes you think that 411 Mania and Evigshed Magazine are notable?
    • What makes you think to the contrary? I checked WP:RSN and did not find any discussion that would have confirmed me its unreliability.
      • We don't assume reliability until someone proves otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to explain why the sources are reliable. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have removed 411 Mania, it seems that the reviewers are just plain bloggers and not professionals. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 18:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the value of the external links?
    • The first is just for content that would not have fitted in the article, the second is a link to the performance of one of the songs from the EP. One of the reasons for adding this licensed link is to avoid adding any non-free sound sample of the recordings.
      • Concerning the first link- if it's a reliable source, work it in to the article. If it's not, remove it. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the "Covers EPs" category is warranted.
    • Why? The EP surely contains of covers, albeit not all of them but it is present anyways.
      • The EP contains covers, yes, but that's not the same thing as being a covers EP. 2/4 are covers. Unless you have a source calling it a covers EP, I'd advise removing the category. J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The writing seems to be below the bar for GAC purposes, and it's unclear where the EP was actually recorded. It's certainly not a bad article, but a bit more work is needed, I feel. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful review comments Milburn as they have really given a new direction to the article. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 14:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@IndianBio:, could you let me know when you feel you've dealt with all of the comments above? J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn:, I thought I already did, was in turn waiting for your re-review. My bad I guess, anyways you can take a look. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 05:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second read through[edit]

Sorry for the ambiguity. I'm taking a second look through now.

  • "Some reviewers complimented" Some did, or one did? Especially as the reviewer is actually notable, no harm in mentioning them explicitly...
    • I think the batch of reviewers who received the EP positively. Here I have a question, instead of naming the reviewers why not jsut the publications? Like "Reviewers from Allmusic, Billboard and Rolling Stone complimented...... " —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gaga covered "Orange Colored Sky" during a surprise appearance at The Oak Room in New York City on September 29, 2010, and again on January 5, 2011" Both at the same place, both surprises? If so, you don't need to change anything; if not, clarification is needed
  • "The announcement happened after the opening of the" What announcement?
  • I'm still not clear on where any of the songs featured on the EP were actually recorded. This is a problem.
    • I added a source from the liner notes of the pdf about the songs being live recorded during the shooting of the special. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United States, the EP debuted at number 52 on the Billboard 200 on the magazine's the issue dated December 10, 2011." This doesn't make sense
    • Actually Billboard uses a future date when it releases its charts on its website or the magazine. For eg, if new charts are revealed on March 13, 2014, the magazine will list it with an issue date of March 22, 2014. Hence how do you want the date to be represented? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The same week, the special also had an impact on Gaga's second studio album, Born This Way, which moved up the Billboard 200 chart from 72–21, with sales of 47,000 copies (up 416% from previous week)." Does the source say that the it was due to the special?
  • "Gaga's version of "White Christmas" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 87, for the issue dated December 3, 2011.[19] The same version also entered the Belgium (Flanders) Singles Chart at number 86, for the issue dated December 24, 2011," Issue of what? I said this first time around

Getting there... J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@J Milburn:, another looky please? :) —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Third read through[edit]

Ok, I'm afraid I'm still seeing problems, which really shouldn't be happening at this stage of the review.

  • "It was made available for purchase on November 22, 2011, exclusively on the iTunes Store in the US" From the lead. "It was released in

the United States to the iTunes Store and Amazon" From the article body. Which was it?

    • Both, this is clarified now.
  • Similarly, you say "to promote the ABC special A Very Gaga Thanksgiving" in the lead, but this isn't made explicit elsewhere, and so it's unclear how this is sourced
    • Promote was a wrong usage I can see, I have clarified that it is the performances.
  • "Some reviewers complimented the acoustic interpretations of the songs and listed "White Christmas" and "Orange Colored Sky" as highlights" Still, you're saying "some reviewers" to refer to one particular reviewer. If you're saying "some reviewers", make sure what you are saying is attributable to two or more reviewers.
    • Does it read better now?
  • Information about the recording belongs in the recording section, not the composition section. Also, did she actually perform the acoustic versions on the show? You don't mention it?
    • There is no separate recording section as you can see. I have moved this to where it originally was.
  • I still feel that you need to remove the "issue"s from the chart information
    • Then the dates become WP:OR, so no.
      • I do not understand what you are saying. Could you please rephrase? J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • If I remove the word issue, the sentence would read as "The song peaked at date XXXXXXX", which would be incorrect as the actual date is not equal to the date issued by the publisher on which the chart is released. I explained it to you above also. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • "for the week ending"? J Milburn (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • That also works, and gives the general idea of the dateline for the publication. Shall I incorporate it? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 11:13, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Please do- I feel you need to remove the problematic "issue" thing. J Milburn (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's certainly not terrible, but it's still not quite there. J Milburn (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have responded to them again. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 15:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@J Milburn:, its been seven days since I made the final comments and addressed concerns. Is there still anything outstanding left? —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 06:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry- I haven't forgotten about this, but I'm pretty busy at the moment. I'll get to this at some point this week. J Milburn (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've made a few final changes to the article, and I'm happy that this is now ready for GA status. Thanks for sticking with it! J Milburn (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:A_Very_Gaga_Holiday/GA1&oldid=1140141214"