Jump to content

Talk:Get to Heaven/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 04:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Hi Tbhotch, thanks so much for beginning this review. It's late here, but I wanted to pick off some of the "easy" things tonight. I'll get to some of the more complex things tomorrow. :) — fox 08:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Tbhotch
;General
Infobox
Lead
Recording and production
  • second album Arc. -> second album Arc (2013).
  • This is done in any kind of articles (not only musical ones), in and outside Wikipedia. You have to give context to readers as they not necessarily know everything you are talking about (you have to give context). You also have to consider readers not always click on the links (because they don't want to or they cannot do it), or that these articles can be printed, be part of the CD/DVD selection, or be part of the Wikipedia's board game, so that additional context is excluded. If you don't want to use "(year)", you can say it on text, ("released in 2000", "2000's"), etc.© Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pritchard told Skiddle" and "During recording sessions" paragraphs are too short.
  • There is no official guideline for WP:Paragraphs other than that link, and if you Google the rules there are no definitive rules for the length. However, it is suggested to have coherence when building a paragraph and they have to remain focused in one idea. In this section you have 5 paragraphs: Paragraph 1 gives the background of Get to Heaven; Paragraph 2 still about the background, but discusses why it was recorded; Paragraph 3 is about what Paragraph 2 is talking about; Paragraph 4 is about the record production; Paragraph 5 is about Higgs "depression". So after this revision, Paragraph 3 is the one that has to be merged with Paragraph 2. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 18:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Composition
  • Okay, I folded it into the previous paragraph; this subsection talks about lyrics and not the music, so it wouldn't fit into the same para as the musical influences. — fox 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Promotion and release
Charts
  • Remove ""X" denotes song not released in a particular country." and ""=" denotes track not eligible for a particular chart.", you aren't using them.
Critical reception
Commercial performance
  • "Get to Heaven entered the UK Albums Chart at number seven.[61][62]" That's it?
  • There isn't much more information available about the commercial success of the album; I can dig for more tomorrow, or just fold this section into the previous one. — fox 08:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Track listing
  • "A gatefold vinyl edition of the album was distributed in the UK by RCA Records, featuring the same track listing as the standard edition of the album." is unsourced.
  • Who is/are the writer(s)?
References
Lead
  • The lead is too short and it currently looks unorganized (Recorded -> release -> charts -> singles -> composition -> reception).
Recording and production
Composition
  • Indie pop art pop are mentioned in the infobox, but not here, why?
References
Categories

Sorry for the late answer, it has been an awful week here. One last thing I didn't notice at first @Fox:, if you are going to use WP:ALTTEXT all images require it for consistency. Other than that, I see no other problem. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 19:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tbhotch: That is totally fine, I absolutely understand! I will add this to the other images now. Thanks again for your detailed review! — fox 20:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fox: Passing the nomination. You can also consider the Wikipedia:Did you know process for it. Good work. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:07, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]