Talk:Folklore: The Long Pond Studio Sessions/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer: SL93 (talk · contribs) 04:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Done all of the below. ℛonherry 05:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply


Lead

edit
  • "released to Disney+" The most common variation that I have noticed is "on Disney+". At least to me, "at Disney+" sounds awkward.
  • "The documentary is set at Long Pond Studio, an isolated recording studio in a forested area in Hudson Valley, New York; she performs all of the 17 tracks of her eighth studio album, Folklore (2020), whilst discussing the creative process behind the songs with her collaborators Aaron Dessner and Jack Antonoff." It seems that "she" should say "Swift" instead.

Synopsis

edit
  • Word such as "intimate" and "cozy" should be avoided unless they are attributed to a reliable source along with a quotation. It sounds promotional otherwise. I see that the word intimate is attributed below it, and there really doesn't need to be two mentions of the word.

Production

edit
  • A comma is needed after Eau Claire, Wisconsin per MOS:GEOCOMMA.
  • The word "cozy" before "cabin" doesn't seem needed or important.
  • "to Disney+" and "to Hotstar" sound better as "on Disney+" and "on Hotstar".

Reception

edit
  • "with a syllabus requiring students to watch and analyse". As a United States topic, it should be "analyze" in the article.

Live album

edit
  • Maybe there could be an explanation of "stripped-back renditions". I'm not sure what that is.

The sources are fine and everything is verified.

I am passing this nomination. SL93 (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thank you! Have a nice day. ℛonherry 16:47, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply
Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed