Talk:Hung for the Holidays

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hung for the Holidays/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 07:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This article seems short and it shouldn't take me more than a couple of days to review it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Review

• Intro

1. The prose isn't very well written. For example: The EP did not commercially fare as well as his previous album, and also received negative critical reviews→The EP wasn't commercially successful as his previous album and was panned by music critics.

• • Fixed 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Background and content

1. There should be a sentence or two about the recording process.

• •  Done Added recording locations. 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1. Hung for the Holidays was aided by singing lessons he was taking at the time.→Hung took singing lessons before the start of the recording sessions.

• •  Done 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Critical reception

1. The SputnikMusic review should be omitted because it is written by Meatplow (user).

• •  Done 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The review from The Trades doesn't appear to be written by notable critic. After a quick Google search, I haven't found any publication that uses reviews by Tony Pascarella.

• • True, but I think arguing that he's not a "notable critic" would be unnecessary here. It depends on the reliability and independence of the source, not the critic's notability. 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The AllMusic review is reliable and should stay.

• • Great. 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Track listing

1. The list doesn't have duration of the songs, nor contains the writer or composer.

• •  Done 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The list of personnel is missing.

• •  Done 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

1. The overall duration of the record should be added to the info-box.

• •  Done 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Final words: Honestly, I don't think this is a GA material. The article is too short and is missing some essential sections mentioned in the WP:MOS-ALBUM. I appreciate the effort, but this topic simply doesn't have the potential to be promoted to good article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• I fixed all the stuff you said above. However, I would like to make it clear that this is not a FAC and that Good articles honor good quality articles that are short, so saying that this article is "too short" would be unnecessary. I do thank you for doing the review, though, and I hope you do good when you review The Age of Plastic. 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

If you're not satisfied with the review, we can ask for a second opinion. I'll ask the community if the review you mentioned could be used in the article. Cheers.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Another things to address

• at the Blue Jays-Rangers game in Toronto.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Hung revealed that he would began→begin
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Hung for the Holidays received less commercial success than Inspiration.→It was commercially less successful than...
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• "It was also the poorest selling Christmas album of all time." This looks like bias.
  • Removed it. But its from a reliable source. Right? 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it is not a reliable source. But regardless of its reliability, those kind of speculations have no place in encyclopedia.

• "Similar to Inspiration, critical reviews for the album were also negative." If other Wikipedians don't consider "The Trades" as reliable source, you'll have to remove this.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• The personnel should be split to "Additional musicians" and "Technical personnel", since there are many musicians.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Here is the link to the discussion whether The Trades is reliable source.
  • Thanks for letting me know about this. 和DITOREtails 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Use another template for the tracking list because the current is not suitable. Use the second one from the list.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• You shouldn't have used CD Universe as a reference because it's an online music seller. Neither the text is authorized.
  • Removed. 和DITOREtails 16:18, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
• Place the references in appropriate templates.
  • What do you mean? 和DITOREtails 17:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Gave you an example how to do it with AllMusic.

•  Done 和DITOREtails 20:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Can you find actual link so I can check the information about the Howard Stern show?
  • It is a youtube link. You can watch it here, if your saying to just listen to it to see if the info is actually on the show. 和DITOREtails 20:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind that.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion:I think this article needs a serious re-building to meet the GA criteria. As far as I noted, the prose is poorly written, it is not broad in its coverage, it contains trivia and basic grammatical errors. In its current state it is barely a C-class article, and far away for B. I am closing the review as failed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hung for the Holidays/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. Longest unreviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

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

• Disambig links:OK
• Reference check: OK - No issues with any of the sources used.

Comments: This article is very short, but I still checked it through. The lead is very short, but given that the article text is also very short, that is typically fine. Though I'd like some expansion, some details on the sounds and I found the actual reviews to be a bit shorter than I'd like it to be. Meaning that it is on the edge of the context I'd like to see.

The prose needs some work on sentences like "A second album was first announced in May 2004, and the EP was recorded during the summer time of that year." For the lead, this should be much tighter and stronger. This lacks impact and so does the next sentence.

• • Removed 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Hung for the Holidays includes covers of Christmas carols and songs as well as holiday thoughts by Hung.[4]" Should not be the first sentence of "Development, content and release".
  • • Removed 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• He said that it "will include original songs and cover songs." "There will be more bands this time. That's all I can tell you." Three fragments, all needing in-line citations per policy.
  • Combining and  Done 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• "Hung also revealed that he was taking singing lessons before starting the recording sessions." - Hung announced... not "also revealed".
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 17:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• When interviewed by MTV News in June 2004, he revealed that recording was "gonna be a much slower process than the first time. Right now I'm concentrating on just picking songs... starting to practice them and things like that." - said - not "revealed" and any quote needs an inline citation.
• He also claimed that producers would submit the songs to Koch Records, and that the label "has some ideas and stuff, and we'll see. It's still early — very, very early."[2] - claimed? Said. This makes it sound like he is being deceptive. Word choice matters.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 06:00, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Hung for the Holidays was released on October 2004, although it originally had been scheduled for release in September. - Rearrange this, flipping September's intentional release, but the delay to October.
•  Done 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• A limited number of copies for the album included a fold-out Christmas ornament.[4] - Should be below all the content and development details.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Hung for the Holidays was not as commercially successful as Inspiration, selling only 35,000 copies.[6] It reached number 22 on the Billboard Independent Albums chart.[7] - Expand the second sentence and rework the first.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Allmusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine gave the album one out of five stars, calling it "the cheapest-sounding record in recent memory; it sounds as if it was recorded in less time that it takes to play." - Cite because of the quote.
  •  Done 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Please add additional reviews or details like Huffington Post labeling it the "best worst" - [1] Or it being labeled a "cult classic" from NY Daily News [2] He did do some signings and such following the release.[3] I'm seeing a lot of little things, but just a few more would round this out better. I'm going to place this one hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Passed. I think its actually rather amazing that I was able to dig up some extra sources to help round it out. It may not be completely comprehensive, but it is probably about all the attention this ever received in proper sources. With that in mind, everything is relative and this meets the criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)