Talk:Night Fishing (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry this has been sitting here for so long. This is third on my "to review" list currently. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 03:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Comments

• Because it's the band's second album, you don't have to say that it was the "second and final album" to be recorded in Hokkaido: I would just say "final album" as this implies that the first was recorded there as well.

• Fixed.

• "and was their first album to be purposely conceived of as an album." I'm not entirely sure what you mean here--could you rephrase?

• How's that?

• I would say, "all released in December 2007"

• Fixed.

• Make sure the lead follows the structure of the article.

• Does this match the structure better?

• I don't think "notoriety" is the right word, as it usually has a negative connotation. I would say "fame"

• Fixed.

• Can you convince me why some of that first paragraph of "background and development" stuff is relevant, particularly the part about the first album?

• It's context to show how the band formed, and what commercial position they were in prior to releasing the album. The Sapporo concert milestone since it was a solo billed concert, at which they performed two of the album's songs. I've simplified it a little, what do you think of this version?

• I would just call that subsection "creation" as I think the current title is redundant.

• Fixed.

• Second sentence of that: replace the band name with "they"

• Fixed.

• This is picky, but at the end of that sentence, could you flip the references so they are in order?

• Like this?

• Middle of second paragraph of that: remove "including"

• Fixed.

• "The band did not want to remove feelings of fun..." The first part reads a little informally, and I don't see how this is connected to the genres mentioned later in the sentence.

• How about this?

• Please go through the article and fix the ref flipping thing, which seems to happen commonly with ref 10.

• Fixed.

• "most fought-over album" be more specific

• Fixed.

• "The label had chosen..." replace "however" with "but"

• Fixed.

• Why is the paragraph beginning with "Lyrically, Yamaguchi worked around a "night" theme" not in the next subsection?

• Is it better at the start of the next section, here?

• "Several plans for the album did not come into being." Please rephrase

• Fixed.

• In the image caption for Queen, I would say that it was partially inspired by them

• Done.

• "In December, Sakanaction..." later in that sentence, change it to: "to promote the album, where they performed at the..."

• Fixed.

• "Originally the band had planned on releasing a new studio album in March 2015, however could not due to bassist Ami Kusakari's pregnancy." Most of the stuff in this section looks good, but I don't see how this sentence is relevant.

• Reworded.

• At the top of the Critical Reception section, would you make a box using Template:Album ratings? I find it very helpful.

• Critical reviews in Japan are generally positive by nature (except Rolling Stone Japan for some reason, and for long-dead subjects); as the act of writing about it is seen as an endorsement (and if the reviewer didn't like the release, they would ignore it and not write about it). If I added a box, it would just be a list of the reviewing sources with '(favorable)' next to them a bunch of times. I could still add it if you'd like, but since there weren't any overseas reviews of the album or one by Rolling Stone Japan, I'm not sure if a table would add anything.

• Were you unable to find any mixed or negative reviews?

• Same as above. It's a cultural thing; and I can't cite publications not reviewing a release, because I have no idea if a lack of a response is an intentional snub, or just that they didn't listen to the album.

• I would say "more than double the number"

• Fixed.

• You don't have to reestablish that that's their debut album.

• Fixed.

• You repeat "additional" twice in one sentence

• Fixed.

• Sorry if I've asked you this before, but you're fluent in Japanese, right? (I'm just asking because of the references).

• I'm not a native speaker, but I used to live there and I have a degree in it! I'm somewhere between CEFR B2 and C1.

• That's all I was wondering! :) Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ref 13 (this) is dead.

• Fixed.

@Prosperosity: That's all I have! Congratulations on your upcoming marriage and I will review your other article soon. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 02:23, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

What do you think of this edition of the article? Do you have any further thoughts for improvements?

Thanks so much! If I have the chance in May, I'll try to return the favour with some of your Veronica Mars articles. --Prosperosity (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be too many of them there then...I don't have any anymore and only one left to revamp before I take a break from getting these up to GA. But anyways, I can definitely Pass now. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 17:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much! --Prosperosity (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: