Talk:Down on the Upside/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am placing this article on hold. There are some minor issues that need to be addressed. I am impressed with the thoroughness, layout, and media. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Notes:

• Lead
  • "...is the fifth and most recent studio album" Consider removing "most recent" since it is already spelled out below that it was the final album.
  • It is a good summary overall
• Recording
  • Some editors consider linking both the city and state as overlinking. I will not fail it on this but consider removing the wikilink to Washington.
  • "The band took a break to perform at some festivals in Europe, where some of the new material was road-tested.[6] Afterward, the band did some more songwriting for about a month and then recorded most of the album at Studio Litho.[3]" Remove some of the "some"s. This will improve readability since they are vague and realistically not needed.
  • "The overall approach to songwriting was less collaborative than with past efforts, with the band members having brought in most of the songs more completely written.[7]" This might need to be rewritten since it reads a little clunky. I know that isn't detailed but see what you can do with it. Was it individual members bringing in the material?
  • "...the latter having lyrically and/or musically written six of the sixteen album tracks." Same as above. And/or should also be avoided.
  • "... .[14] (In the liner notes, Thayil credits Gilmore for inspiring the song)." Appears to be incorrect use of paranthesis. Remove them or put them before the previous sentence's full stop.
• Composition
  • "Down on the Upside contained less of the heavy guitar riffing that was found on the band's earlier albums, with the songs instead placing greater emphasis on vocals and melody." The lack o heaviness is already made clear just a few lines above. Maybe swap the line to read "The songs placed emphasis on vocals and melody over heavy guitar rifts." That is a real minor change but it might read better.
  • "Utilized" many editors and writers consider the term unnecessary. Consider "used".
  • "The overall mood of the album's lyrics isn't as dark as on previous Soundgarden albums." Isn't should be is not or are not.
  • "The lyrics for "Never the Machine Forever" were written by Thayil,..." This was addressed in the previous section. Consider "Of the lyrics for "Never the Machine Forever", Thayil said" or something like that.
• Release and reception
  • Final paragraph is not sourced.
• Packaging
  • That really long quote might be better as a Block quotation.
• Tour
  • "After Lollapalooza, the band embarked on a worldwide tour.[39] Tensions continued to increase during the band's ensuing tour in support of the album." These sentences might be better merged.
• Outtakes
  • Remove the contraction "weren't".
• Personnel
  • I assume this is taken from the booklet. You might want to add a note at below the section heading stating so. Disregard as this looks OK per the FAs in the project.
• References
  • It looks like you are missing some details that would help for the citations. These include author and page numbers.
  • ""RECORDINGS VIEW;" should not be in all caps per the Manual of Style
  • Is " ((( Down on the Upside > Review )))" an error?
  • "Gold and Platinum Database Search" needs a publisher.
  • You used both ISO and spelled out date formats. Chose one or the other.
  • Double check yourself to make sure these are all standardized since it looks like there are some errors. I'll do another run through myself.
• Other
  • A good copy edit from someone who is better at that sort of thing might elevate the article. If you address the instances I mentioned it will be more than good enough.
  • The article is very quote heavy. This will not prevent it from passing. You might want to do some more paraphrasing after the review.

Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC) I have made the changes.Cptnono (talk)