Talk:A Trick of the Tail/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take this one on. At first glance, it looks very close to GA status already - I'll post my comments when I've had a proper read through. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 08:05, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sparklism. I dare say you'll find bits that need copyediting or querying, or suggesting small content changes, but we'll see how we go. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Lead

• The second sentence is a bit clumsy as it feels too long - can this be reworked?

Certainly - trimmed a bit Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• ...he sang lead from the remainder of the album. - "for the remainder of the album"?

Gone with "sang lead on the rest of the album" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• ..around 400 potential singers. Might be worth clarifying that these were potential new singers.

Replaced with "around 400 audition tapes" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Reading this back, I see that my comment here was misformatted (I meant the italics to be on new). In any case, I can see why you've gone with 'audition tapes', which is great, but if you read this paragraph now you'll see that it isn't making the point clear enough about the band needing a singer. — sparklism ^hey! 19:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• The '5.1' bit of the 'surround sound mix' isn't mentioned in the body, and it might also be good to wikilink it for non-techy readers (like me).

I trimmed lots of unsourced technical stuff about this reissue out of the body, so here I've gone with "a deluxe package with bonus tracks" instead Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Background

• Would it be good to wikilink 'tour' to The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway Tour in the first sentence?

I've wikilinked it for now, but I think for longer term the tour article probably wants to go to AfD as an unreliably sourced list that doesn't really add much to other articles. However, some people get quite upset when I suggest information is better suited to another website. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Keyboardist Tony Banks had been close to Gabriel as friends, and did not want to lose the band as well. This doesn't quite read right - as well as what?

I've copyedited this a bit, but the basic gist from the source is that Banks and Gabriel had been best friends since they joined Charterhouse aged 11ish, not regularly seeing his best friend for over 10 years and all his adult life so far was bad enough, but for the band he founded to split up at that point would have just been an annus mirabilis for him. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Did they receive exactly 400 replies, or somewhere around that number?

Added "around" - the source says 400, but I think they meant an approximation of that Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Some sent photographs → "Some applicants sent photographs"

Done Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Recording

• In the second paragraph, "tackle" feels a little informal, would 'perform' be a better choice?

I've gone with "handle" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if Stickland was an 'auditioner' or an 'auditionee'

My bad - I thought it was "auditioner" but Wiktionary says it's "auditionee", so fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Confusingly, it seems that either would've been correct, though 'auditionee' sounds right to me. — sparklism ^hey! 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Would it be appropriate to link key and/or range here?

Hmm, not sure - in my view this covers words that should not be linked ie : "everyday words understood by most readers in context" Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. — sparklism ^hey! 19:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Songs

• The verb 'designed' is used twice in the first paragraph - is there a suitable alternative?

Gone with "intended" for the first one Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• Collins sung the song.. - sang the song?

Fixed Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• There's a dablink to Inheritor here

Fixed. Surprised I didn't get nagged by DPL bot for that, but there you go Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

• We should wikilink Brand X, no?

Done, also mentioned it's a "side project" as it's not obvious what "Brand X" means there unless you've heard of that band Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I hadn't, as it happened :) — sparklism ^hey! 19:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reception

• I've never seen the video, so what exactly is a "miniature Collins"? (Serious question - is it a puppet or an animation or something?)

Type "a trick of the tail video" into Google you'll find it. It's a shot of Collins from a distance overlaid with a shot of the band close up, making him look about 6 inches tall. I've gone with "a composted shot of Collins", linking to composting which describes the basic technique. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I did actually follow the link to composting there. I got very confused at first, but thankfully you'd got the right link in the article... — sparklism ^hey! 19:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Track listing

• This album is the first to crediting individual members of Genesis as writers. This doesn't quite make sense (to me, at least). Also, is there a source for this?

I've rewritten this, and added a source. The basic idea is that earlier albums just credited "Genesis" or "All Titles Done by All", which the press misinterpreted that Gabriel wrote the majority of the material, and individual writing credits were designed to debunk that myth. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Summary

• These suggestions are relatively minor tweaks, and I'll repeat my earlier comment that this is a pretty decent article already. I'll have another read through later and see what else turns up. Good work so far Ritchie! — sparklism ^hey! 12:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

@Sparklism: I think everything's been addressed, can you take another look? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:37, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, much better. I've been through the images and they're all fine. Sources look good. I just think the lead needs a tweak (see my comment above)...keep up the good work! — sparklism ^hey! 19:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

The lead has been duly tweaked, so have a look now. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Can't argue with that - I'm passing this as a Good Article. Well done! — sparklism ^hey! 20:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick and thorough review! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)