Talk:The Age of Adz/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 03:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about review

Review of Revision 17:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC). Normally I would go through a section by section check, "scanning" for issues. But I think a detailed analysis against the criteria is better for this article as it is not really the minor problems holding the article back in this case. Please see the review below. For your convenience, I used this template as it shows the full good article criteria.

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
	1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The very first sentence is vague. What number studio album is this and a brief description on Sufjan Stevens (nationality/profession) please? Done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) The third sentence in the Critical reception section is unclear. Who describes it as such? Done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) Are you sure that "Critical reception of The Age of Adz was very positive"? I suggest that sentence be rewritten as the article does quote a few negative and mixed opinions to better summarize the paragraph. The paragraph contains a few negative and mixed opinion comments to summarise the broad spectrum of response. However, from the ratings and accolades it seems pretty clear that reception was very positive. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) May I ask what's with the huge gap above the Awards section? Never noticed a gap before, can't see one now. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) Place (featuring Shara Worden) after "Impossible Soul" in the track list and any other featured artists after their respective tracks. Done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) It's "The New York Times", not "New York Times". Done. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk)
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The lead needs work. It does not do a good enough job at summarizing the full article. It says almost nothing about the Background and recording and does not mention "Impossible Soul", which has a full length paragraph in the body dedicated to itself. Expanded significantly. I realised this would be an issue, but unfortunately had no time to update it. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) Is "Awards" a good name for the section? Those are simply honors and not actual awards presented. Change the name to "Accolades" or "Honors" maybe? Simply titled this to be consistent with Illinois, which has now been changed. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) Please remember that names of all newspapers are written in italics. This was forgotten for The New York Times. Quite, and Done.
	2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Reliable sources have been used. However, the Track listing section lacks sources. Various quotes also remain unsourced. See next criterion. The genres and record label also need sources. The former could easily be integrated into a new section focusing on compositon and content. While citing, keep in mind that it is better to not have references in the lead and have them in the body. The final sentence in the first paragraph of the article is not even mentioned in the body and is unsourced.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One quote in the Artwork section (second-last sentence) lacks inline citation, which is required. Done (the source afterwards). MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) Per WP:LIKELY, the "Note" in the Track listing section must have a source.
	2c. it contains no original research.	For all I know, what I have mentioned above could be original research, because it is unsourced. I am not sure though. It comes from a user comment on discogs apparently, which can be found here: http://www.discogs.com/Sufjan-Stevens-The-Age-Of-Adz/master/281160 I am unsure how to adequately reference this fact. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) I would NEVER trust a user comment. Look for an official source. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	This album did make it into many charts, so consider a Charts section. This also means a major expansion to the Sales figures and chart performance section. And do some research to see if there was any certifications (not required if there was not). Expand the Artwork section and talk about the artwork inspiration. Write a secton about the content of the album and move the song sample there. Take a look at these sources: [1] [2] They talk about themes and music in the album. (Look for quotes from Stevens). Consider writing about live performances maybe? There has been a few. Per WP:ALBUM/A, a personnel and credits section would be appreciated if possible.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I have not noticed any obvious bias in the article so it's a pass. Be careful about the first sentence in the Critical reception section though.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Only MasterOfHisOwnDomain has contributed to the article this month as of 17:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC). Pass.[reply]
	6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Fail: This article needs extensive work. I understand that a lot of work has been put to this article for nomination and that it would all come down to this. However, The Age of Adz largely fails many of the criteria and I strongly suggest that the article be renominated after a major clean-up and expansion, using this review as a guide for a stronger nominee. Many facts and statements lack sources to back them up, obvious information is omitted and unclear sentences are a huge hold-back. While 1 and 2 can be fixed within seven days, it's 3a that deserves lots of work and time. Write and expand any section if possible. At the most, this article stands at C-class.

Final comments about the review

Although I am not changing the overall status of this nominee (pass/fail), this page is still open for the time being for comments about the criteria and my review. Thanks. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 18:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review, it appears very thorough and helpful. Jujutacular ^talk 19:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to fix some of the issues. I look forward to this article being renominated, though who knows who'll review it. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 21:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. However, I was hoping that I could respond to many of the points you raise before a final decision was passed (i.e., because I'm working on the article at the moment). I'm disappointed about that, since that's what I have done with other GANs. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But I also want you to take your time into expanding the article. As I said in the overall review, the small fixes can be done in a matter of seven days. I don't want you to rush with the article for a second nomination. Keep up the work! Make the next one successful. :) Oh and the charts belong in a section of their own. Thanks for your comments. WIKIPEDIAN PENGUIN ^(♫♫) 13:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]