Talk:The Slip (album)/GA2

GA Review

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

• "The album was released under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike license.[11] The album was initially released digitally on the Nine Inch Nails official website without any prior advertisement or promotion. A limited-edition, physical release followed two months later." Repetitive wording. The first sentence could perhaps be merged into "The Slip was released for free, with the message from Reznor, "this one's on me"."
• "It was recorded, performed, and released in three weeks, with Reznor himself releasing the album's only single, "Discipline", to radio stations himself." Uses "himself" twice.
• "The song had been mastered by Moulder less than 24 hours before it was released to radio stations." Is this album necessary for the lead. Although it would be a nice fact to include in the body.
• The way you incorporate both the day of the week and date in the Recording session is awkward. Try re-writing it in such a way that it could be read aloud easily, without parentheses.
• "IGN commented" Who from IGN commented?
• "Richard Cromelin of the Los Angeles Times called [...] and adding" Should be added for consistency.

• I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at here... sorry. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• My bad, that note was really unclear. I fixed it, there was grammatical tense inconsistency between "called" and "adding", which should have been "called" and "added". --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Gotcha, thanks for taking care of that. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• "The Cleveland Free Times commented that" same as above
• "The New York Times commented that" same as above, and needs italicizing
• I notice that a few of the publications with reviews in the infobox aren't in the Critical reception section, including some notable ones like allmusic, Rolling Stone, and the NME.

• Yeah, that's since WP:ALBUM requires a limit of 10 in the infobox. I opted to get a wide range of reviews in the infbox, then just quote the more quotable ones in the text. Drewcifer (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think the critical reception section should include opinions from all notable sources which have been known to comment on an album. It's OK to be selective with what's included to a degree, but if it's in the infobox and it's as important as Rolling Stone than their opinion should be in the reception. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Expanded the reception section a bit by adding quotes from Spin and Rolling Stone. Also swapped the About.com review for the IGN review in the infobox. I would have also swapped out something for the LA Weekly thing I sourced in the reception section, but I'd hesitate to call that particular source a full-fledged review per se, so I think it's better left out of the infobox. Hopefully all of that helps cover all the bases of the more important/notable review sources. Drewcifer (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)