Talk:Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CrowzRSA (talk · contribs) 16:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Background and recording

• "Prior to forming The New Radicals, lead singer Gregg..." -- "The" shouldn't be capitalized Done
• "Both albums were flops, generating no charting singles and receiving lukewarm reviews from critics." -- Can you find another word for "flops"? Also "lukewarm," perhaps 'mixed reviews' would work? Done
• "Before signing to MCA Records in 1997, Alexander had been dropped by two record labels: A&M and Epic Records. In 1997, Alexander signed to MCA Records in 1997..." "MCA Records in 1997" is redundant and needs to be fixed, may want to rearrange too this portion too. Done
• When recording "Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too," Alexander stated that he "'completely ripped up' the 'rules that applied to (his) first two records.'" -- Why does the quotation have apostrophes? It should be Alexander stated that he "completely ripped up the rules that applied to (his) first two records." Done
• Also "Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too" should be Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too here. Done
• "While the album was credited to The New Radicals, it is often considered..." -- "The" capitalization again Done
• "...as he wrote and produced all of its songs (only the two singles were co-written with other artists), played several instruments on it and is the only constant member of the band." There has to be a better way to get "only the two singles were co-written with other artists" in there without parenthesis. Perhaps add it add the end as a separate sentence or using a semi-colon or something Done

Musical style

• The Encyclopedia of Popular Music likened The New Radicals' politically-oriented lyrics to British rock band Chumbawamba. -- link British rock. Done
• The Encyclopedia of Popular Music likened The New Radicals' politically-oriented lyrics to British rock band Chumbawamba.[10] Entertainment Weekly compared the album's music to that of Hanson.[5] The Los Angeles Times likened The New Radicals to the Rolling Stones and the Beatles.[11] -- all of these sentences start with "the" or a proper noun, any way you could make the sentences flow better? Done
• while a review by AllMusic commented that his vocals resembled Mick Jagger's.[2] Consequence of Sound commented that the album "made Gregg.. -- excessive use of the word "commented" in this section. Synonyms or rewording is needed Done
• This section really needs to be expanded somehow. I know this probably doesn't have too many sources out there but finding out what the lyrics mean through reliable sources and more information on the musical composition of the pieces, rather than just drawing all the information from critics. Are the no interviews with band members? Response: Gregg Alexander is really evasive; he's done only one interview in the last 15 years (it's the Billboard interview), and before that, the only two interviews I found remnants of (one in a back issue of Rolling Stone, one quoted in 1001 Songs You Must Hear Before You Die) were very sarcastic and wry. Consequence of Sound's retrospective review does go track-by-track and describe each song, but I didn't want to put too much weight on a single source. I'll look a bit more for another interview or lyric explanation, but I don't think there's much more out there.

Critical reception

• The first paragraph of this section seems to just list the name of the reviewer, then give a quotation. In the second paragraph you do better. Try to make the first paragraph less quotation-y Done
• Since the "Commercial performance" section is so small, you should combine "Critical reception" and "Commercial performance" into one "Reception" section with two subsections: "Critical" and "Commercial performance" Done (I think)

Commercial performance

• "...reached #41, also achieved Platinum status (1,000,000 copies sold) in the United States" -- this would sound better as "...reached #41 and sold 1,000,000 copies going Platinum in the United States" Done
• "...in the United States[19] less than a year after its release.[20]" -- per WP:MOS, citations can only go after punctuation like a comma or period. So just put the references together in numerical order like so: "...its release.[19][20] Done
• "...reaching number 1 in Canada[27] and the Top 5 in the United Kingdom.[28]" -- same comment as above Done
• write out "number forty-two" rather than "#42" Response: I don't see 42 anywhere in the article. However, I have removed all "#" signs and replaced them with the word "number," so Done
• Overall this section could actually be a lot more in depth. You could explain how long the album was on all the charts for, what chart position it entered at, how long it stayed at its peak position, etc. Also it wouldn't be a bad idea to talk more about the singles, especially more specific with charting. Done

Track listing

• "Alternate mixes of single tracks were also released on singles—the radio edit of "You Get What You Give" is on its parent single,[32][33] the instrumental cut of "Someday We'll Know" is included on some pressings of its parent single,[34] and the radio edit of "Mother We Just Can't Get Enough" appears on its parent single (which was never officially made available for sale due to the band's split).[31]" -- I think this could be put in the actual article with another section, perhaps with "Background and recording," but it would be smart to renamed after, maybe to "Background and production" or "Conception and production" or something along those lines Done

Personnel

• "Adapted from "Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too" album booklet[1] and Allmusic.[35]" -- italics and referencing issue ([1][35]), also reword to {{xt|"All information credited to Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too album booklet and Allmusic." Done

Introduction

• First sentence should really be "Maybe You've Been Brainwashed Too is the debut studio album by American alternative rock band the New Radicals. Released October 16, 1998, it is their only album release before disbanding in 1999. -- or something along those lines. Done
• ""You Get What You Give," released off the album as a single" -- change wording to ""You Get What You Give" was released as a single off the album, and was commercially successful worldwide" Done
• link single (music) Done
• ..., and was commercially successful, charting in several European countries and the United States. -- reword to just "...and charted in several European countries and the United States." Done
• Needs to be expanded to summarize the whole article, there is really no information on "Background and recording" in the introduction. Done (I think)

References

• 1: Use Template:Cite AV media notes for citation Done
• 27: ""New Radicals’ only hit, "You Get What You Give," was secretly influential"." -- Capitalization Done
• 29: this citation lacks publisher, accessdate, author etc. Done
• Citations 4, 6, 8, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, and 43 all have inconsistent date formats with your typically used Month day, year format. Need to be consistent per WP:MOS Done, thanks to Ritchie333

(talk page stalker) Just a quick point of order, listing citations just by ordinal number as you see them in the article is problematic. Sometimes, an action point can be resolved by a copyedit, adding a second source, removing an unnecessary one from a group, or re-ordering two sections. As soon as you do that, the numbers will point to the wrong citation. It doesn't matter so much in this case as it's reasonably obvious as to the context, plus I've fixed the dates to all be standard US format. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links

• Delete this link to the lyrics, metrolyrics is not a reliable source. If you would like examples of good album-related external links, I suggest you look at some featured album articles external link sections. Done

I'd really like to see this page get passed as a GA, "You Get What You Give" is one of my favorite songs to date!! Once these comments are addressed I'll have another look through of the article and do some copyediting, maybe even expand on some sections. CrowzRSA 17:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the assessment! I've begun work on addressing your concerns. I'll keep working on it later. -Anotheronewiki (talk) 12:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I believe I've fulfilled all of your comments, except for the ones I responded to. Is there anything else I should do, or is it GA-class now? -Anotheronewiki (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment -- The article is coming along nicely, and I've found quite a few sources which would help in expanding the "Musical style" section:

1. [1] "Alexander and New Radicals played with an exuberance reminiscent of Style Council's breezier moments ('Mother We Just Can't Get Enough') and the blue- eyed soul side of Todd Rundgren ( In Need Of A Miracle')." ; "an uplifting combination of sweeping melodies, aggressive harmonies..."
2. [2]
3. [3] This source talks about "You Get What You Give," "I Hope I Didn't Just Give Away the Ending," "Gotta Stay High," & "Technicolor Lover" and would be a great addition to the "Reception" section as well as the "Musical style" section.
4. [4] "...or the catchy but cynical 'Jehovah Made This Whole Joint For You'..."
5. [5]
6. [6] can't see all the text, but this book says "...breezier moments ('Mother We lust Can't Get Enough') and the blue-eyed soul side of Todd Rundgren ('In Need Of A Miracle')...."

I found a lot more sources just searching "You Get What You Give" "new radicals" on Google Books, would be nice to talk about all the songs in this section rather than just the album as a whole. Of course not putting too much emphasis on one song, but you could easily get another two paragraphs for "Musical style." CrowzRSA 20:32, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

That's great! I'll get to work putting those into the article. Thanks! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Now I think I'm all done! I added the sources you gave (one or two were already in the article, but most weren't), and I have a paragraph about "You Get What You Give." Is there anything else to add, or is it a GA now? -Anotheronewiki (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Criteria check

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

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:

Article reads very nicely and definitely has an adequate amount of sourced information to be considered a good article. Excellent job on this, and thank you for taking the time to put work into it. Happy to pass now, CrowzRSA 19:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much! My first Good Article! -Anotheronewiki (talk) 20:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)