Talk:Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
May 4, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Christina Aguilera (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christina Aguilera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christina Aguilera on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Albums (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject R&B and Soul Music (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of R&B and Soul Music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

GA Review[edit]

Toolbox

See WP:DEADREF
for dead URLs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Back to Basics (Christina Aguilera album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:  (talk · contribs) 15:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I can help you expand some sections. I really love this album and I want it to be GA, too. — (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I appreciate the offer, my only hesitation is that the reviewer can't be too involved in the article's current form. WikiRedactor (talk) 18:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have found some few issues:

Lead
  • It says that the album has sold over 5 million copies worldwide, while the ref. given says that only 4.5 million
  • Link music critics
  • The album received a nomination for Best Pop Vocal Album at the 2007 Grammy Awards and won Best Female Pop Vocal Performance for its lead single "Ain't No Other Man". Internationally, the album debuted with 615,000 units, and has since sold 5 million copies worldwide. It was later certified platinum in Europe and double platinum in Australia and Canada. ---> Remove "Internationally... Canada" to be located before "The album... Ain't No Other Man". (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    YesY I've fixed them. — (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Background
  • Why did Aguilera use her alter ego Baby Jane? — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
  • "Subsequently, Aguilera included the song "F.U.S.S." ("F*** You Scott Storch"), which Storch commented was "pathetic"" ---> Remove the "which Storch... pathetic" to the "Composition" section. — (talk) 05:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    But wouldn't that leave his mention in the Background section a bit incomplete? I get into a little more detail about "F.U.S.S." in the expanded Composition, anyways.
    YesY Okay, that's fine
Music and lyrics
  • Change it to 'Composition'
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Give it some music samples if possible
    Yes check.svg Done
  • Try to write more about each songs — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
Singles and promotion
  • Merge them together because the two sections are quite short You've expanded them — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done, I expanded the Singles section and removed the subhead in the Promotion section (to make it look "fuller".)
  • Add: The track "Here to Stay" was used for the Pepsi Commercial.
    Yes check.svg Done
Critical reception
  • Yes check.svg Done
  • Separate "The album received a nomination... twenty-five years" into another section "Awards and accolades". Try to find more best-of lists and awards if possible — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    The album only won a couple of awards, the major ones being listed in the article alrady. Since they are still critical recognitions, I think they fit alright where they are right now.
    Yes check.svg Done
Commercial performance
  • It's to short. Try to write more about its chart positions and certifications — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    It's now a few paragraphs long, take a look and tell me what you think.
Charts, certifications and release history
  • I've fixed the layout — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
  • The source for the chart "International sales" is dead
    Couldn't find a replacement, so that figure has been removed.
    YesY, okay
  • Release history: add 'format' and 'label'. — (talk) 06:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
Files
  • Remove some image files. They make the article look not so good — (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    Yes check.svg Done
Overall
  • Wow you've did very well to expand the article! I really love that. There are two things left:
    • Expand the 'Singles' section (follow the article Circus (Britney Spears album))
    • Expand more the 'Commercial performance' section (adding information for its American & Europe success) — (talk) 05:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I added a bit more meat into both sections, let me know what you think.
  • OK, I've checked them and there are some few more issues:
    • "Ain't No Other Man": "...and was certified platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America for selling one million copies" ---> Actually, "Ain't No Other Man" has sold more than 1.7 million copies in the US, so you must say that "...for selling more than one million copies" not only "one million copies"
    • "Hurt": "...It peaked within the top ten in several European countries, including Austria and France; it peaked at number 19 on the Hot 100 and was later certified gold for sales of over 500,000 copies." ---> Fix: "...The single was a moderate hit in the US, peaking at number 19 on the Hot 100. But elsewhere, it was a commercial success, peaking at number..."
    • "Candyman": "...In the United States, the song peaked at number 25 on the Hot 100 and was eventually certified gold. Internationally, it reached the top twenty in most countries, including Australia and New Zealand." ---> Fix: "...Similar to "Hurt", "Candyman" was also a moderate hit in the US, peaking at number 25. But elsewhere, the single was a commercial success..."
    • "Oh Mother": "...it peaked at numbers 23, 54, and 79 in Austria, the Netherlands, and China, respectively" ---> Seriously? The single was released exclusively in Europe, so there are no charts for China! It peaked at number 79 in Switzerland. Fix it.
    Yes check.svg Done WikiRedactor (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The rest: Seems fine. — (talk) 05:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Result[edit]

  • Well done, passing! — (talk) 01:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments[edit]

  • If I could just make a comment, most of the sections are nowhere near as expansive enough. The Singles section for example does not cover enough information, and isn't even complete. This article needs a lot of work, far more than the alarming few comments posted here.  — AARONTALK 11:08, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you both for your feedback. Over the next couple days, I will expand the sections as recommended and make sure this article fully meets GA requirements. WikiRedactor (talk) 12:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Please bear with me, I'm a little busier than normal this coming week, but I will make sure that the expansions come before the end of the week so the article doesn't have to be failed. My apologies. WikiRedactor (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I added some reviews. Jorn talk 00:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lotus is the fifth, Back To Basics is the third.[edit]

Again, there is a difference between studio albums and albums recorded in a studio (or every album would be a studio album, except for live ones) [1] Ã — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.233.75 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).