Talk:The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 19:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Calvin999 and I am reviewing this article.

Review

• Lots of dead links and connection issues

Fixed Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Use a flat list template for the genres, producers and labels in the info box (See "Man Down" as an example)

Where does it say flatlists are needed? The template documentation page still says to delineate with commas (Template:Infobox_album#Genre) Dan56 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Miseducation incorporates → Use full title

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill produced three hit singles—"Doo Wop (That Thing)", → A colon would suffice instead of a dash, because nothing follows the singles.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The album's success propelled Lauryn Hill → Remove first name

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Worldwide, the album has sold over 19 million copies. → It has sold 19 million copies worldwide.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Aretha would later have → Use her surname

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• reggae legend Bob Marley. → 'legend' sounds bias and impartial.

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• In Music and lyrics, Slant Magazine should be in italics

DOne. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• praised it for Hill's honest → praised Hill's honest

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Critical response section isn't exactly all rave. There are quite a few mixed and negative reviews there, too.

There are NO mixed or negative reviews. Dan56 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Accolades section should either be prose or table, not prose and table. If you keep the prose, it will need to be expanded of course. If you keep the table, the Publication table will need to have the column shaded per terms of access. It will also need music awards shows added to it.

There is no guideline that says both cannot be used. Dan56 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Accolades table should actually go at the end of the article

Again, there is no guideline that says it should. Even MOS:ALBUM#Article body admits "Because not all albums are the same, it would be difficult to create a uniform list of mandatory sections". Dan56 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill was promoted with three singles—"Doo Wop (That Thing)", "Ex-Factor", and "Everything Is Everything"—all of which became hits and produced popular music videos.[71] "Doo Wop" charted at number 1 and number 3 in the United States and the United Kingdom, respectively, and "Ex-Factor" reached number 22 and number 4, respectively. → About the singles, so remove.

The first sentence should be kept, as it summarizes something relevant to this article's topic (WP:Summary style) Dan56 (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• So far, you've flicked between US and U.S. Be consistent and pick one and stick to that one.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Though The Miseducation was largely → Again, use full title. DOn't flick between full title and abbreviated.

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• It looks incomplete having so many gaps for writer and producer in the Track listing, just add Hill to them

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• The Charts table also need the country column shaded grey

Done. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Succession table is redundant now

Removed. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Update the Certifications table to one like in "Man Down"

Done, even though that wasn't completely necessary. Dan56 (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• References are a mess. Lots of publications aren't linked the first time, you're using different date formats, books should be in a section called Sources and online should be References. They shouldn't be being mixed together.

Not true, they can be mixed together (please see WP:FNNR --> "General references and other full citations may similarly be either combined or separated.") The criteria in WP:GAC calls for consistent citation format, meaning both online, journal, and book sources can be cited with in-line citations. Other stuff that uses more elaborate presentations doesn't make it policy. Dan56 (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Summary

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Outcome

I can't pass an article with so many problems with the references. It makes it very difficult, near on impossible, to check the verifiability and reliability of the prose and information.  — Calvin999 17:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Calvin999:, this article doesn't qualify for immediate failures (please read Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria#Immediate_failures before acting so hastily), and some of your complaints have no basis in actual guidelines, particularly your complaint about reference style (see my replies above). Also, what original research is there, what complaint do you have with the images, and why do you believe this article doesn't meet the criteria of having citations to reliable sources where necessary? (you didn't point out in your review any unsourced material) The article should be placed on hold to leave at least seven days to fix any issues (WP:GAI#Step 4: What to do during a review) Immediate failures are performed when there are valid cleanup banners, if the article is far from "meeting any one of the six good article criteria", and if there are copyright infringements. In all other cases, you need to give the nominators a chance to correct any and all issues. Dan56 (talk) 21:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Also, DepressedPer seemed to have fixed many of the issues you brought up earlier. Dan56 (talk) 22:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have you give you any time. The fact that so many dead links and connection issues were present is an indication of unsourced info, because the pages don't exist! And there are mixed/negative reviews. A critic, for example, calling the ballads tedious is hardly rave and positive. I was not mistaken in my failing. How dare you un-do the outcome of my review. You should have just re-nominated the article again. I'm really surprised in you and your WP:BADFAITH.  — Calvin999 07:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, in fact you do, @Calvin999:. You havent addressed any of my policy-based responses, and once again, you're assumptions are getting the better of you. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, not that most of the links in this article were dead when you picked up this review. You clearly haven't read any of those reviews, since they ALL gave it a positive score and were ultimately positive in their assessments of the album, even the one critic who called the ballads tedious (Pitchfork Media, score: 8/10). You clearly haven't reviewed this article adequately, and it would be respectful of you to the contributors of this article to withdraw as reviewer or ask for a second opinion (as detailed at WP:GAN, using this template {{GA nominee|...|status=2ndopinion}}) rather than list it as having failed. Furthermore, there's no need for such an exclamatory response to un-doing your immediate fail of this article. I felt your most critical objections were not valid and gave adequate responses to each of them based in Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (which, no offense, but you didn't refer to any in your objections), so really, the tone isn't necessary. Dan56 (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I would like to hear from @Prhartcom: if they have time to spare on what's the appropriate next step here and on this interaction in general. Dan56 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

P.S. You're getting confused: I didn't immediately fail or quick fail. I did conduct a review. So please reeducate yourself and re-read the definition. It says that a quick fail has no review. So I think you'll find that you're mistaken. And no, I don't have to place on hold at all. Just re-nominate it if you feel that strongly, I'm sure it will pass next time. Until then, respect that I deemed it not good enough for promotion, and drop this nonsense. That's all I have to say.  — Calvin999 20:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't even address how wrong your complaints were... tsk tsk. Do me a favor and don't ever review an article I nominate again. Dan56 (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to ask me, I wouldn't anyway. Please don't flatter yourself. Not after the mess you've caused. You won't even address how you're wrong in this entire situation. And yes, lot's of reviewers archive reviews Prhartcom  — Calvin999 07:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)