Talk:In the Land of Grey and Pink/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having nothing better to do on Wikipedia this period of the year, I'll do this review. Comments to follow soon.--Retrohead (talk) 11:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording of two sentences in the lead, because it seemed strange Hastings to be the main songwriter and at the same time to contribute with one song.

Okay Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about renaming the first section "Background and recording" because the better part of it elaborates the recording process?

Don't see why not - often "Background" has more band history and songwriting, but there isn't so much of that here Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too familiar with the band, but what do you mean by "alternative lyrics"? The original lyrics were altered or they (the band) shifted to some other (alternative, unusual) topics?

I've taken this out as it already says "Golf Girl" had different lyrics to "Glow Girl" earlier, so it's redundant prose Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-arrange the second sentence from "Release and reception", so it would read like this: "It did not chart in the UK, but sold steadily throughout the 1970s and remained in print, with "Nine Feet Underground" becoming a popular track on late-night FM radio." (that is if by "remaining in print" you meant the album, not the single).

I've copyedited this and linked "remaining in print" to deletion (music industry), which is the negative of that. At 23 minutes, NFU would never have been released as a single! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the Allmusic review was well after the album was released, but were the other reviews in retrospect as well? I think you should write how the album was received at the time it was released (if you can find such reviews) and how it was seen in retrospect.

I've added a Rolling Stone review and bolstered the review box a bit. As for contemporary reviews, they probably exist but will probably need a trip to the British Library news archives to rout them out. Given the narrative explains the album was very much a long-term seller without any short term success, I would say reviews from 1971 are less important compared to other albums that charted well. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's usually the "Credits are adapted from the album's liner notes" note at the beginning of the personnel section. Also can you place the Allmusic ref on the top of the release history table, so the reader can assume you're having referenced the entire table, not just the 2011 edition? I'd recommend placing the ref next to "Label".

Done (I think). While I'm here, I noticed (and I probably did this) that there is a credit for Paul Beecham playing trombone on "Golf Girl", this is not on the original LP notes or the reissue CDs, and only fansites seem to claim it, so I've left it out for the time being. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for "exclusive" to be written with all letters capitalized (ref 14). Also, the title of Stefano Orlando Puracchio's book is "Progressive Rock" (ref 10, please cite a page).

Done, and done. I think the reason I put "interview with Richard Sinclair" is because technically Puracchio's book is a self-published source, but I have no reason to believe that Puracchio would deliberately lie about anything Richard Sinclair said or the interview transcript is unreliable in the spirit of the guidelines. If that makes sense! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it better to discuss the progreviews.com review in the reception rather than pointing a link in the external links?

It seems a dead link (IIRC it hasn't been the past, but it is now), so I've removed it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's everything addressed, anything else? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:09, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of having a review box score with descriptions because they can be often subjective (according to the wiki editor's preferance). I'd exclude Rolling Stone and Goldmine from the table. Allmusic can stay there, or it can go in the prose. I'm fine with both choices on that.

Fine by me, I've collapsed back to AllMusic and left the Rolling Stone commentary in the prose. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Front cover seems fine, audio sample too. Sources are relevant, introduction is properly representing the article's body. When we're done with the note above, I'm passing the article. This must have been the quickest review I've ever done (credit goes to you too).--Retrohead (talk) 14:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You caught me at a good time ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]