Talk:Stranger Fruit/GA2

GA Review 2

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• "It is Zeal & Ardor's first release as a full band, previous releases were entirely composed by singer Manuel Gagneux, although Stranger Fruit only features drummer Marco Von Allmen from the full band alongside Gagneux." this is confusing, which also sucks because it makes up about a third of the lead.
• Yeah, reading the next paragraph I'd suggest a re-write of the lead. It'd be nice if it were longer, but it's not distractingly short.
• Technically the quote in "Background" is long enough to be a blockquote, but it also contains a lot of very short words, making it a very short blockquote; could it just be incorporated into the preceding paragraph where the title is already mentioned.
• Speaking of, the "Background" reads like reading a list does. There's keeping statements neutral and factual but still having some style, and then there's taking simple statements and putting them next to each other.
• Is "Song Information" a standard section header, because it doesn't seem so. Not "Composition and artistry" or something seen in other album articles?
• You could have at least separated the songs into their own paragraphs, or connected them by theme rather than listing; it's just a lot of statements all bunched together, and doesn't read easily. It doesn't help that the voice and structure of sentences is conflicting, so info on one song will end before it feels like it should and then the reader has to go back and start re-reading everything to understand what song you're now talking about.
  • Also uses a lot of quotes without contextualizing them.
  • And there are certainly places where better words and phrasing could be used, for clarification and to abide with common and/or correct expression.
  • This section could also use a re-write.
• The Accolades table just bugs me. I feel the information could be presented in a better way. I'm sure I'll think of some suggestion later, and come back to this to add it.
• Fail - significantly wanting in terms of layout and prose

Coverage

• Is there no more info on the music videos? If the singles don't have articles, their music videos should be covered here.
• "The album is produced by Gagneux and Zebo Adam, mixed by Kurt Ballou, and mastered by Alan Douches." - don't need to state this with the full personnel listed below.
• Alternative album cover should be discussed in the album artwork section.
• ""Gravedigger's Chant" features the lyrics "Bring the dead down low, Bring the dead body down to the graveyard, son. You can't run, you can't hide.", alongside piano and gospel-style vocals." - since these lyrics are not discussed, do they need a random sentence thrown in there?
• ""The Hermit" is one of four instrumental tracks on the album (alongside "The Fool", "Solve" and "Coagula")" - any reason you've decided three songs are a side-note, despite having the same amount of info on them as the one that isn't?
• the Critical reception section is literally just a list of quotes of positive reviews.
• Commerical performance should either be expanded or ditched - the same content exists in a more reader-friendly fashion as the chart table.
• Fail - several things that I would consider necessary are missing; conversely, it also features unnecessary excesses

Verifiability

• Does "The front cover features a green Granny Smith apple almost entirely obscured by the band's logo and a purple foreground." have a reference? Because it isn't visually obvious, to be honest.
• The image caption "Manuel Gagneux was the main creative force behind the album, writing every song and playing every instrument except for drums." is uncited; I also feel it would serve better in the body text.
• "All tracks written by Manuel Gagneux. "Fire of Motion" features samples of speeches by Aleister Crowley, "Don't You Dare" features samples of speeches by Anton Lavey." needs a ref where the sentence is.
• Fail - several uncited statements

Neutrality

• Quoting entire paragraphs from reviews praising the album is excessive and can definitely be seen as bias. As in, the Critical reception section is literally just a list of quotes of positive reviews. I'm not saying to include one negative review if it's the only one in a sea of positive ones, that's clearly bias against by not reflecting the body of reviews, but building a section of other peoples' hyperbolic praise is still pushing it.
• Fail - has an entire section made of very positive quotes

Illustration

• Well illustrated throughout with a variety of media and tables.
• Though the Accolades table could definitely be some other kind of split list.
• Features an alternative album cover, with no discussion of this at all - not good in terms of coverage or, like, not having the image deleted from fair use.
• Fail - fails because of the use of a fair use image without any suitable fair use justification

Stability

• Hasn't had significant work done since August.
• Pass

Copyright

• Copyvio tool currently down, and 71 sources is still more than my brain can handle manually checking, so this part may have to wait until the tool works again.
• copyvio check looks scary but google play uses WP content, and the rest is from the heavy quoting. Kingsif (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Passes

Overall

• Putting this on hold for a response given the previous reaction to an immediate fail, but I'd still say it seems like an immediate fail. The style is just not good, and there's interspersed issues throughout in all the other criteria. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• With no response in 6 days, and given the initial assessment, I am closing this as a fail. Kingsif (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)