Talk:Nevermind/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Excellent article. Very little to complain about. And honestly, most of the things I've mentioned below are pretty minor.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   A few prose complaints, which I've bullet-pointed below.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Some of the references need work. The Billboard reference (#44) is broken (the site's been redone recently). Also Billboard should be italicized, and it's owned by Nielsen Company. The RIAA reference goes to a search page, so I'd recommend adding some instructions on how to get to the specific info being referenced. Also it needs a publisher. Also, I'm not a fan of doing publishers as "MTV.com" or "Billboard.com". MTV is the publisher, not MTV.com; it just happens to be via their website. Does that make sense?

I plan to standardize the web references soon. At FAC, the general consensus is that if you are sourcing from a website, you have to indicate the publisher as a URL. Hence instead of "Allmusic", the publisher would be "Allmusic.com". With publications that generally exist in print form, I tend to stndardize them as such (ie. article repoduced on www.rollingstone.com are attributed to Rolling Stone, since that's how they were originally published). WesleyDodds (talk) 09:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT has this one covered. Some publications (such as NME) have more news on their website than they cover in their magazine. --JD554 (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

   One question, for the long list of original recordings with Vig, and what the songs eventually became, does the source provided tell us what songs were recorded AND what they were renamed/released as, or is this OR?

Yes, actually. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   What about chart positions/certifications for the singles? At least in table form? This is more of a suggestion then a demand though....

   B. Focused:

2. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

3. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   Some more images would be nice, however as the only one is the album cover. Don't have any great ideas about it though.

5. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   On hold for now. Shouldn't be a big deal to fix, I hope.

• "Feeling disillusioned by the heavy detuned rock popular in the Seattle grunge scene which Sub Pop had built its image upon, Cobain, who at the time, was listening to bands like R.E.M., The Smithereens, and the Pixies, and began writing songs that were more melodic as a result." That sentence is rough; very long and meandering, with too much going on.

That's been fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "later released as the b-side to "Sliver"" B-side should be capitalized and wikilinked for the uninitiated.

Done. indopug (talk) 12:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Vig was told that the band would come back to record more songs" told by whom?

The source is unclear (that is, in the source cited, Vig says "I was told . . ." but doesn't indicate who told him) WesleyDodds (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the confusion here - we know Vig is the producer from earlier in the same paragraph where it says "suggested Butch Vig as a potential producer" and "the band traveled out to Vig's Smart Studios in Madison, Wisconsin to begin work on the album." --JD554 (talk) 08:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Vig was told that the band would come back to record more songs, but the producer did not hear anything for a while" This sentence is constructed in such a way that it makes "Vig" and "the producer" sound like two different people. Also, "for a while" is a little slangy for my tastes.

Can't think of a better way to construct the sentence. "The producer" is used so vig's name isn't needlessly repeated. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "The band sent Vig some rehearsal tapes prior to the sessions that featured the Smart Sessions songs along with some new ones, notably "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Come as You Are"." What are the Smart Sessions? First time this is mentioned.

Rephrased. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "When it arrived in California, Nirvana did a..." The pronoun of "it" seems a little weird here.

I can change it to "the band". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Both Wallace and Vig noted years later that upon hearing Wallace's work the band loved the mixes.[26] After the album's release members of Nirvana expressed dissatisfaction with the polished sound the mixer had given Nevermind." I think you need a "however" or something like that in there, since there seems to be a disagreement here.

I recall that I didn't use "however" because I had already used the word in a similiar vein earlier in the paragraph, and wanted to avoid redundancy. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "American record stores;[30] Thirty-five thousand" Either the semi-colon or the cap is wrong here.

Rephrased. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the Release section, in the sentence "the record could possibly be certified gold by September 1992", certified is unwikilinked. Later, in the last paragraph, there's "Nevermind was certified Gold and Platinum" with certified wikilinked. Swith the links.

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• "Nevermind was certified Gold and Platinum by the RIAA in November 1991" spell out RIAA, since this is the first time it's mentioned. Same with CRIA. Drewcifer (talk) 09:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything should be fixed now. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Passed Everything looks great; clearly up to GA standards. Great work! I hope to see this article at FAC relatively soon, as it seems pretty close to being FA quality as well. A few ideas for moving forward: the addition of some more images would be helpful. I also I think the prose could be tightened up a bit throughoutt, so a copyedit would be very beneficial. The lead could also be expanded considerably. And of course, now that this article has gone through the GA process, I encourage everyone involved with getting it to this point to take part in the GA review process as well. Drewcifer (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)