Talk:Songs for the Deaf/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Lead
  • "Dave Grohl, well-known Nirvana drummer and current Foo Fighters guitarist and lead singer, as a guest drummer." I'd remove well-known, it's a bit WP:PEACOCK, I'd simply change it to former. Secondly what does "current Foo Fighters ..." mean? You shouldn't use current as per WP:DATE. Neither is it clear whether that means he was the Foos guitarist and singer at the time of SFTD, or is still in the Foos now. I'd reword it to what you want it to mena of the two above options.
  • "having sold 986,000 copies in the country as of June 2007 according to Nielsen Soundscan." This info is a year old. Either update it, or re-write it to have a less dated feel.
    • Removed the term 'as of June 2007' and changed the subsequent reference.Red157(talk • contribs) 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overview
  • "Dave Grohl (of Nirvana and Foo Fighters fame)" Again it's a bit WP:PEACOCK. Also remove the brackets. If it's important enough to use, it's important to use without brackets.
  • "He replaced the previous drummer, Gene Trautmann who started working on other projects." Should be a comma after Trautmann.
  • "Grohl was a keen admirer of Queens of the Stone Age (the band opened for Foo Fighters on tour) " Again remove the brackets, otherwise it looks a bit like it's thrown in as an afterthought, when it is quite clearly one of the reasons Grohl admired QOTSA.
  • "He joined Queens of the Stone Age in October 2001 when he received a phone call from Josh Homme with whom he had been friends with since 1992 when Josh was the guitarist for Kyuss." This sentence needs a couple of commas to break up the different clauses.
  • This section includes three paragraphs of just one sentence. It doesn't look good that way and, I know we're not at FAC here, is frowned upon at FAC.
Album production
  • What's Gallery of Sound? I'd add a brief explanation before it, e.g. in an interview with XXX Gallery of Sound.
  • Ditto with HMV, although the wikilink is good.
Critical reception
  • "Songs for the Deaf received very positive reviews, including a total score of 89 out of 100 on Metacritic as of June 2007," This is again dated. Although I don't understand the relevance of the date anyway.
    • Updated accesdate and removed inline reference to "as of June 2007". Skomorokh 00:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artwork
  • This section is totally unreferenced.
Track listing - variations
  • Is there any specific reason for the bullet points. I feel it would be better in full prose.
  • Can you add the fullname of the writers on their first use.
Personnel
  • Again it's unreferenced though I'm not sure how vital this is really. The main reason I say this is because of the number of additional musicians.
  • Can you add wikilinks to all the instruments.
Charts
  • Again unreferenced.
General
  • Remove the use of brackets.
  • Don't link years for no reason. If it needs linking do so to 2002 in music, etc. But I'd remove most of the year links, which aren't full dates.
  • References should be placed immediately after punctuation.

There's quite a bit to do, but I feel most of it should be do-able in the next couple of days so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further

Most of the stuff in "Dave Grohl and other contributors" is rather irrelevant to this album ... "Grohl's first performance with the band occurred at 7 March, 2002 in The Troubadour, Los Angeles, and his last performance was at the Fuji Rock Festival on 28 July, 2002. He returned to the Foo Fighters soon after.[8]" -- There's no need to tracks these guys' entire involvement with the Queens at all.

Try to combine stubby single-sentence paragraphs together to make it more readable and the appearance of the text better. We have a very strict non-free media use policy (particularly #3, #8) at Wikipedia; I don't see the music of any those samples being discussed in either the prose or the captions. Three samples are too many to include if you aren't going to discuss the music at all.

Are all those track listings necessary? They convey no extra meaning to the general reader (whom we are supposed to write for) and simply make the article more listy. Is there any discussion on the main album cover? indopug (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added those song segments eons ago when I just thought such things made the article look nicer. I can understand that at the moment, they neither hinder or really help a it getting to GA status. If in however many days the article is good for GA, I guess a segment specifically about the music would have to be added if it were ever to be pushed for a featured article, and then the song segments would be useful. Likewise, the mentioning of Grohl's tour status would become justified if 'Songs for the Deaf tour' was added. And I'm removing the tracklist for the touring edition forthwith. Never liked the look of it there... Red157(talk • contribs) 20:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very confused. If Red157, you suggest a section about the music should be added, then at the moment the GAN would fail on criteria 3, because it lacks major aspects and hence is not broad in its coverage. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please split the lead into two or three paragraphs per most other album GAs/FAs, for better organisation and readability. And please expand on the audio sample captions; they currently don't assert the educational value for which they are used. —Giggy 12:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final review.

It's been a few days since any activity on the article and it's been on hold for more than a week now, so I'm going to fail it unfortunately. It's nearly there, but I've a couple of concerns.

  • Two other editors have voiced concerns about the breadth of coverage, and this is easily my biggest concern. The article seems fairly short for a major album, and light on details about the album/music itself. Please see the specific concerns above.
  • Stability. A lot of changes were made during the GA process by two main contributors. There are no edit wars, but it might be best to discuss your thoughts on the article and possible improvement on the talk page before coming back to GAN.
  • Images. There are two perfectly fine images, but are there any more of the band or anything specific to the album. Like stability, this isn't a clincher to pass/fail GA, but I will bring it up when it's an obvious point of future improvement.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Peanut4 (talk) 12:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame. GA articles seem to be tougher to achieve than they used to be. Red157(talk • contribs) 13:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of pictures from Flickr showing the band performing live on the Songs for the Death tour to address one of Peanut4's concerns. Cavie78 (talk) 10:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Songs_for_the_Deaf/GA1&oldid=1144798621"