Talk:To My Surprise (album)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Mm40 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm Mm40 (talk · contribs) and I'll be reviewing the article against the good article criteria. I'll be watching this page, so you should leave any comments/questions here.

There are no major problems in the article, as (upon a spot check), references support what is given in-text, it's NPOV, and, although short, the article seems to be broad enough in coverage when faced with the number of sources available.

References

• One exception to the last of those (broad in coverage) is the lack of chart information or sales figures. I saw in the last review that you weren't able to find such information, which I understand. However, [1] supports that the album never charted (and it can be used to reference the track list, if you feel it's necessary)
  • Added. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• The MTV podcast (reference 6) should have a time range for when the claim is supported. You should add "Event occurs at 1:00–1:30." at the end of the reference, of course using the correct times
  • It turns out that that source is now dead due to a layout change, but do we really need a source to back up the fact that they have disbanded? It's not exactly a contestable issue. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Reference 3 (Calgary Sun) is a dead link; as it's a newspaper article, however, you can just cite it like a normal newspaper article
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Why is babysue a reliable source? I know it's used for a review, but we need some evidence that others in the music industry consider it a respectable source
  • I found the source on http://news.google.co.uk/ which is more selective and precise than the main google search. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• According to the MoS, reference names shouldn't be in ALL-CAPS even if they are on the source
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

General

• I highly recommend that a copy-editor go through the article after this review; there's a few basic grammar issues, such as missing commas
• There's a few contractions, such as "he'd" and "didn't"
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead should be expanded a bit; perhaps say when work on the album started, that Rubin wasn't originally going to help, and that it didn't chart (see first bullet above)
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• The lead image needs some sort of caption
  • The cover art? There are loads of Good and Featured album articles that don't caption the cover art, also, what kind of caption would it need?

History

• If Darner wasn't planning on working with Rubin, why'd he send him the tracks
  • Reworded. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Who says Rubin is "acclaimed"?
  • Removed. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• The grammar is off in the sentence beginning "In promotion of the album". Also, there's an ambiguity: was the album premiered on MTV, or was the music video?
  • Changed. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Musical style

• In the second sentence, you repeat the phrase "each song" twice
  • Changed. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• "noted on the album's diversity" → "commented on the album's diversity" – you don't note on something, you note it
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Reception

• As mentioned above, you should include the fact that it didn't chart
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Some of the content here might be better placed in the above section, such as the "muscular style" and the "vocals [are] masculine..." comments
  • I believe that those comments are more apt in the critical response section as that's more of a review of the album and their performances than the actual musical structure. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• The wording of the start of the second sentence makes it difficult to understand
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Can you reword the sentence with the babysue review so that it isn't the first word? It looks odd beginning the sentence with a lowercase
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Personnel

• Do you think you could even out the columns?
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
• Please expand "A&R" to its full title
  • Done. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Overall, the article is pretty good, and most if the issues will be pretty easy to fix. I'm now putting the article on hold for seven days to allow you to fix the issues I've brought up. After they are resolved, I'll pass the article. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made changes per your comments. --REZTER ^TALK ø 16:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, as all my issues are resolved, I'm passing the article now. Thanks for your contributions, and consider reviewing an article at GAN to keep the backlog down. Cheers, Mm40 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)