Talk:Wonderland (Faryl Smith album)/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Belovedfreak (talk · contribs) 13:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Generally well-written; some queries below.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Well-cited and verifiable. Some sources are not exactly high quality but in the context in which each is used here, they appear to be reliable.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    It covers all the major points and stays focused.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article is written in a fair and neutral way.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article is stable, I can see no edit-warring or content disputes.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    The one image used is non-free; it is an appropriate size and has appropriate licensing information and fair use rationale
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  • No links to disambiguation pages
  • External links all appear to be working
  • Spot checks of sources don't show any problems with WP:V or copyvio/close paraphrasing/plagiarism issues

Lead

  • "...and features digitally produced "duet" with the late Luciano Pavarotti" — is this one duet (indefinite article missing) or should it be plural?
  • "...the song appeared in the UK Albums Chart ..." — I presume you mean the album (unless you're referring to a single from the album)
  • Consider naming the producer in the lead
  • Consider mentioning the year she appeared in Britain's Got Talent for context

Recording and release

  • Consider mentioning her age .The lead says that she is a teenager, but there's nothing more specific. That could mean 19, but then you mention that she was still at school. It made me interested to know how old she was while she was recording.
    • Done, also added to the lead. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • I noticed in the lead you had "duet" in quotes, but in this section you don't. That should be consistent.
  • "The album was produced by Jon Cohen, who also produced Faryl and has previously worked with artists including the Opera Babes and Vanessa-Mae, who said that Smith has "matured as an artist since the first album and I have no doubt that once again, people will be astonished and moved by her performances"." — this sentence is a little unclear and would probably benefit from being broken up. The second "who" is ambiguous — is it referring to Cohen or the Opera Babes and Vanessa-Mae?
  • Just wondering if the section would flow better with the second and third paragraphs swapped. It would seem more logical to me since presumably the concept of the album chronologically came before the production and discussions of her performances? What do you think?
    • I'm just concerned about the tense-switch- the first two paragraphs talk about what happened, where as the last paragraph talks about what the album is. I can rejig it if you like- I certainly see where you're coming from. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I can see your point. For me, I still think it would flow more logically the other way around and might benefit from a rejig. I'll let you decide though as it's beyond the scope of the GA criteria.--BelovedFreak 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception and performance

  • I was a little surprised to see a fan review in this section. I realise it has been published in a newspaper, but the fan himself is not really a notable music critic (as far as I can tell), don't we tend to only use specific reviews from notable critics or experts? Not to mention the fact that it's from a local newspaper, I don't know... it seems a bit gimmicky to me (on their part I mean). Is there any precedence of this kind of thing in other articles?
    • Yep, gone. For a long time, this was the only review I could find, but I agree that it has no place in an encyclopedia article. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Was it a conscious choice not to link song titles in this section that haven't already been?
    • Yeah- we're now talking about Smith's version of the song, which will be mentioned in passing if at all in the target article, rather than the song itself. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, in that case, you may want to revert my adding a link to "O Holy Night" if that was left unlinked for the same reason.--BelovedFreak 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

References

  • Given the Daily Mail's reputation for getting things wrong, it'd be nice if you could find an alternative source for the first cite (supporting the date that she signed with Universal). Having said that, in this context it seems fairly reliable as they are reporting something that happened the previous day, with official pictures. If there is an alternative option though, that would be better.
    • Alas, the broadsheets don't care too much about BGT, so the Mail is often the best source around. Furthermore, they're the ones who really broke the story, as it were (they were with Talbot's record deal too). I can't actually find a better source that mentions the date of the contract, which I think is useful for context. I could add a reference to The Telegraph, if you like, but I think the Mail reference would have to stay. J Milburn (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
      • Ok, that sounds fair enough.

In general, this is very well-written and close to being GA standard. I'll put it on hold for 1 week to allow you to address the above points. --BelovedFreak 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha! A review! And a thorough one at that- thanks! I'll get to work on your comments now. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I think that's everything- as an aside, I've been mulling over the possibility of sending this to FAC, so any thoughts in that regard would be appreciated! J Milburn (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Everything looks good to list this as a good article now. Well done! Regarding FA, I would suggest asking someone to go over the prose, preferably someone experienced with FA standards. It always helps to have other eyes on things that you've been reading over and over for many months. There were the odd sentences, like the one beginning "The result included a variety of songs..." that read slightly awkwardly, but I'm certainly not an expert in prose and I couldn't exactly put my finger on why. I would worry a little bit about the use of those tabloid sources for FA. It's unfortunate that the DM, for example, is well-known for getting things wrong. However, your argument above is reasonable to me, and you may be able to argue for keeping them at FAC. (Plus, you're quite experienced in that arena, so you probably know more than me about acceptable sources! :)) What else... some of your online sources are missing retrieval dates, presumably because it's also an offline source and url is just a courtesy link? It looks a bit inconsistent at the moment. One other thing I wondered was that one of the reviewers described it as a Christmas album, and it would seem to be based on the tracks. Should this be mentioned elsewhere? I'm afraid that's all I can really think of, but wish you best of luck for a FAC nomination if you decide to do that. --BelovedFreak 12:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the review and your thoughts- very much appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)