Talk:Blame Game

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Blame Game 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.
January 12, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
WikiProject Songs (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Songs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of songs 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 quality scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blame Game/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I'm going to be beginning the review. I want to compliment you on the seemingly amount of researched you've done, but I'm afraid you need some prose work. Try and have a freind copy-edit or just really try and analyze every sentence.
  • Prose - "who praised the vocal performance of Legend, the sincerity expressed by West, and the subject matter." -> very poor and difficult to understand
"Following several media controversies, West decided to record his next album in a reclusive manner only working with artists he considered himself familiar with" -> again this sentence could be re-worked so much better -> In an attempt to diminish public scrutiny following several of his publicized controversies, West opted to work more familiar writers,[was never specific - writers, producers, directors?) in keeping with his goal of artistic privacy.


The audio sample needs a better rational and actual sourcing


I think you over-did it a bit with so many repetitive reviews. This article needs some pruning


They need some work. #24 isn't para-metered, a lot of the titles are inconsistantly italicised (they shouldn't be), many are missing publishers (they have the works) #'s 25-27
  • I'm placing the article on hold for seven days, if by which time, sufficient progress hasn't been met, it will result in a fail. Good luck!--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 22:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the article now. I reduced the length of the review section and removed repetitive critical opinion, along with tweaking other issues. In addition the great Dan56 copy-edited and I think it reads far better now. Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

  • I think the reviews section is still too repetitive and overly-detailed. As of now, the prose still need tightening. "who praised the vocal performance of Legend" - > basic things like this take away from the read. Try working on them a bit more. I'll later post more instances as you keep improving them so we can close the nomination :)--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I've reduced, resummarized and straight-up removed content from the reception section further... Could you cite some more issues if there any? Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The "Reception" section is still very large and repetitive. What difference (aside from boring the reader) between having 10 reviews or 30? I suggest a good 30% reduction. Also, the photo is much too large. After these are addressed, we can proceed to prose and references. The faster the gets done, the closer you are to a pass. The article definitely looks like it's in pretty good shape.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Bruce has just yesterday reverted all GANs that had not yet obtained a reviewer, and his edit summaries said that he's leaving the project (which I think means Wikipedia). He's also posted about this here on his talk page. Under the circumstances, if this isn't ready to be passed, then I think you'll have to fail it. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I picked up copy-editing the article. I reduced the section and removed the image here. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the above has been addressed if the review can be wrapped up. Wizardman 02:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sicne there's no further comments I'll pass this. Wizardman 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)