Talk:Dare to Be Stupid/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Quadell ^(talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator: User:Gen. Quon

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.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	All problems resolved.
	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.	The References section is fine. It could have better formatting (spacing, ISBNs), but these are very minor issues.
	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).	All problems resolved.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No problems with this.
	3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	All problems resolved.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Although I think "Yoda" is given too much coverage compared to other tracks, I don't think this is a big enough problem to disqualify the article from "Good" status.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No problems here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No problems here.
	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.	Images and samples are fine.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No problems here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations, this passes all criteria.

Specific problems

The lead section should summarize all content in the article, and should not contain information that is not in the body of the article of itself. (See WP:LEAD for details.) This lead gives unique information (produced by Derringer, helped to cement Yankovic's fame in the mid-80s) and fails to summarize certain sections (background, originals, critical reception). – Quadell ^(talk) 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Partly fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many items are linked which I would not expect to be helpful to the reader. (myriad, pet, Earth, etc.) See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) for more. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of these have been fixed, but there is still an overlinking problem in parts. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to have lists for tracks and personnel, but these need to be cleaned up. They should not contain too much extra information, especially not information that is already in other sections of the article ("Her picture can be seen being torn up in the video", "record company suggested that he do a straight cover song", "omitted from the Food Album", etc.) You may want to look at some featured album articles like One Hot Minute, Over the Rainbow (Connie Talbot album), or The Final Cut (album), to see the best ways to do this. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This has been improved, but is still problematic. Descriptions of songs (beyond author, original artist, "parody of") need to be in the prose sections, not the list. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is fixed. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two Hearted River comments

I'm not seeing the connection between anything in the Background section and the subject of the page. How did the experience of writing/recording/releasing(/touring in support of) his previous album inform this one? Were there any personnel changes in the interim? Those are the kind of things I'd expect to see in a Background section.
Similarly, I don't know that we should care about the album's reappearances on the Billboard 200 unless a reliable source has correlated them to, say, the release of a single. It's enough to say where it peaked and how many weeks it spent on the chart.
The music samples are too long (10% of the track length or 30 seconds – whichever is shorter). In addition, the fair use rationales are insufficient. What specifically are the samples intended to illustrate that can't adequately be done with prose? (The sample captions need to reflect that, too.) See WP:SAMPLE.
The two sentences that follow "Although the lead single "Like a Surgeon" and the parody "Yoda" were met with praise..." don't provide any insight. Drop those sentences and move the references to the first sentence.
What does "moderate reception" mean? Moderate in the amount of attention the critics gave the album?

Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm starting to fix this article up. I will improve the Lead and Background sections. On the latter, I'm trying to stress that Al had been written off as a one-hit wonder and that he was trying to top his last album. I know I didn't write it like that. I'll fix it. I cleaned up my grammar on many sections and removed the useless info that was pointed out. I expand on "Yoda" because it is a fan favorite and has a long history. I cleaned up the track listings, removed useless info that was already in the article, etc. I'll clean up the samples later.--Gen. Quon (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the problems with the samples. I dropped the quality and cut them down to 20 seconds and added captions.--Gen. Quon (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining issues

Many of the problems mentioned above have been fixed, and that's wonderful. There are still a few remaining problems, and I'm not quite comfortable giving this GA status until they are fixed. I'm willing to leave this open a few more days to see if we can nudge this up to GA status. But if it's not ready by the 6th, I'll have to fail the nom (allowing it can be renominated again later, of course, when the issues are resolved). I don't feel comfortable refactoring other people's comments, so I've listed the remaining five issues in one place, below. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Background", the first half of the first paragraph has a lot of facts, but no sources.
Under "Critical response", the second half of the first paragraph has a lot of facts, but no sources.
Almost nothing is said about the musicians (Schwartz, Jay, etc.). Is there any discussion on them in the sources?
The lead still contains information not found in the article body: "produced by former The McCoys guitarist Rick Derringer", "helped to cement Yankovic's fame in the mid-80s"
The "background" section gives facts about the previous album, but does not tie it into this one. It seems unrelated. It doesn't show that Al "had been written off as a one-hit wonder and that he was trying to top his last album", for instance.

Alright, I added citations to the sections that need it, I liquidated the "Background" section, renamed it "Recording" and removed any prior reference to non-Dare to Be Stupid stuff, I added info about producer and musicians, although, I'll be honest, I couldn't find much. Finally, I amended the lead so that the "helped to cement Yankovic's fame in the mid-80s" section was removed and "produced by former The McCoys guitarist Rick Derringer" section was referenced in the text. Hope this all helped.--Gen. Quon (talk) 00:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]