Talk:Plastic Beach/GA2

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

I am nominating this GA for Reassessment because the "review" by User:Special Cases was thoroughly inadequate. The following are my concerns:

My primary issue with the article is the large swathes of uncited information, especially in the Release and promotion section. Also note, a lot of the stuff in that section is trivial/non-notable and should be removed.

The personnel section is very misleading. 2D et al. are fictional characters and fictional characters cannot compose real music. Please remove their names and include out-of-universe only. I am particularly shocked by the absence of one Damon Albarn in the section...

"As of October 2010, Plastic Beach has sold just over 1,000,000 copies worldwide." - ref?

Was wondering, the Reception section is huge in comparison with the rest of the article. (I see 20+ reviews that are extensively quoted!) Please remove half of those reviews, while at the same time representing all that is being said (many reviewers tend to say the same thing). Also, is there an order by which you have ordered these reviews? I suggest either positive reviews first then negative, or reviews by music publications then mainstream publications.

Is the Release history section useful ro anybody in any way? Further, is everything in that section reliably sourced? Most of the sources that exist go to retailers like Apple or Amazon, which aren't reliable sources.

The lead could use some rewriting - mention the musical styles and themes on the record. Don't think the names of all those collaborators is needed there.

Apart from that the article is quite good, especially the first three sections. I've significantly contributed to another Damon Albarn album GA, Modern Life Is Rubbish, which you can use as a template if you want. I'll keep this Reassessment open for 1-2 weeks; if improvements haven't been made by then, I will delist it.—indopug (talk) 10:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I now agree. A quarter way through the article it loses it's best work. Special Cases ^{Spit out your comments} 11:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since no improvements have been made in the past week, I am delisting this article of its GA status.—indopug (talk) 19:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]