Talk:Death of a Pop Star/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 14:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to 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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Has an appropriate reference section. SilkTork (talk) 14:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Article appears stable. SilkTork (talk) 14:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Images are appropriately tagged for use in this article. SilkTork (talk) 14:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Images are relevant and have appropriate captions. SilkTork (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Language neutral, and content unbiased. SilkTork (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• No evidence noted of original research - content follows sources. SilkTork (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• Article is richly sourced. Some of the sources are press releases, though these are used to support information rather than notability so are acceptable. SilkTork (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

YouTube and a download page are used as sources in a couple of places - can we find better sources to support those statements. "On January 19, 2010, David Banner published on YouTube a teaser for the album. " and "Before any announcement of the collaboration had been made public, the second track off the album, "No Denying (Channel 3)" was leaked onto the internet on April 27, 2009"

• Main aspects of the album, its promotion, release and reception are covered. SilkTork (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Query

• Prose is mostly workable and understandable, but needs some attention here and there. I'll tidy up minor stuff rather than posting here, but other issues I'll post here. SilkTork (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• Other than the excessive list of non-essential people in Technical personnel, article is focused and on-topic. SilkTork (talk) 01:17, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• The Release and promotion section has several small subsections that could be merged per WP:OVERSECTION. SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
• The Multimedia section should be summarised in the lead. SilkTork (talk) 01:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Fail

General comments

• "The live instrumentation showcased throughout the album is an ear-catching detour from 9th Wonder's usual sample-based production." This sounds like opinion or journalese. Can this be rewritten in a neutral encyclopedic style? SilkTork (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I will address this later. ???uest ^talk 04:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• "underwent a few pushbacks" - can this be clarified or written up in neutral encyclopedic style. From the context it appears that the album's release was delayed several times. Can that be stated instead? SilkTork (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Edit: "The release of Death of a Pop Star was delayed several times. The album was originally scheduled to be released on December 29, 2009 for free." ???uest ^talk 04:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The delayed part is fine - but "for free" is ambiguous, as it could imply there was no cost to the record company in arranging the release on that date. In that section can you clarify when the album was actually released, and under what terms: was it still to be a give-away album (I assume that means it was downloadable with no fees or subscription charges), or was there a charge for downloading, or was it released as a CD sold in the shops? SilkTork (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• "In October 2009, it was reported..." Did what was reported actually happen? If so, it would be clearer to use the direct language: "Banner and 9th Wonder set up a website." If what was reported did not happen, can we have some details, and rather than "reported" is it possible to confirm what went on? SilkTork (talk) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I could not find a source confirming the occurrence of what was reported. Therefore, I propose the following edit:

Proposed Edit: "David Banner and 9th Wonder also intended to set up a website where donations can be sent for the album, with half of the proceeds going to an undisclosed non-profit organization." ???uest ^talk 04:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. SilkTork (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• "was leaked onto the internet" Not clear from the context if the track was authorised or not. Source cited doesn't give much information. The source appears to be a download site. Is there a source which talks about this "leak"? SilkTork (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately not. I searched the deep corners of the Internet. ???uest ^talk 04:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

The source for that information is [1] which doesn't mention a leak. It's not clear from that source if they had been given permission to list it or not. There is very little information in that source other than to say that the track exists, but they're not sure of its name. unless we can get a source which confirms the sentence: "Before any announcement of the collaboration had been made public, the second track off the album, "No Denying (Channel 3)" was leaked onto the internet on April 27, 2009." it may have to go - as it stands at the moment, the sentence is making an assumption about what happened from a primary source. You could say "2DOPEBOYZ mentioned a track they called "“Channel 3” or “No Denyin'”" in April 2009, and provided a download link." That is factual. You needn't mention the actual day as that is the only event to have happened in April 2009 in the article, so just the month is sufficient detail unless the 27th holds some significance. Of more significance than the date is that the brief mention was written by Meka Udoh, but that doesn't need to be mentioned in the article, though you are right to detail in the cite that MEKA (or Meka Udoh) is the author and ultimate authority on the information, which is also where the full date belongs. SilkTork (talk) 11:29, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

• There are a lot of what appear to be non-important people listed under Technical personnel - Scott Parker – trainer, Caroline Yim – booking, Damien Granderson – legal. WP:PERSONNEL advises: "Some albums have credits for members of management teams, web designers, and artists and repertoire representatives who have little if anything to do with the creation of an album. Additionally, sometimes liner notes can have long lists of thank yous to individuals who were completely unrelated. These unrelated individuals should not be listed—only report musical and technical personnel who had some direct involvement in the creation of the recording or artwork itself. " Can the list to trimmed to only those who are relevant. SilkTork (talk) 14:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The "Technical personnel" list has been truncated per your suggestion. ???uest ^talk 04:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

• Copyvios that turn up [2] when using Earwig's Copyvio Detector, are referenced quotes, so are allowable. though the article does rely a lot on quotes, and the use may be too excessive. SilkTork (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree there is an excessive number of quotes. I am working on it. ???uest ^talk 04:10, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

On hold

Article appears fine apart from the issues highlighted. On hold for an initial seven days to allow the issues to be dealt with. SilkTork (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Noting here that the nominator has edited the article, but has not been active otherwise on Wikipedia. As the article is pretty close to passing, and this GAN has been waiting for a long time for a review, I am quite comfortable leaving the review open longer rather than close it. I am not available to resolve the issues myself at the moment, but once time allows, and if the nominator does not return within a reasonable time, I will deal with them. If I feel my involvement has become too significant I will seek a second opinion before passing. Meantime if any passing editor would like to help out - please do! SilkTork (talk) 07:49, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm dealing with another review atm, do you mind if I address the issues you raised in the meantime? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm still not fully active myself, though am hoping to get the two reviews I still have open resolved before Oct 14, otherwise completion will have to wait until November as I'll be away. I think this is a fairly quick and easy one, so this should be done before then, and I really don't mind waiting a little longer. The other GAN is Singapore, and that's looking like it may be more difficult to resolve quickly. SilkTork (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

I have started working on this - I had hoped to get it finished today, but other things took my time in real life. I will return to this in November, as I am away now for the rest of the month. SilkTork (talk) 23:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• I've tidied up a bit, and am now passing as GA. SilkTork (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)