Talk:Stormy Weather (AT&T album)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review if that is okay. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

The phrase “which Henley is associated with” is rather awkwardly stated. I would suggest simply saying that “The record was produced by Don Henley as part of his nonprofit organization Walden Woods Project” for simplicity and clarity. Henley founded the company so you can just say that it is his company.
I find the first half of the second sentence of the first paragraph of the “Background” section to be somewhat awkwardly worded and overly long. I would suggest just saying something like “The album consists of traditional pop songs and…” just to be more concise with your wording.
I am not sure what you mean by the phrase “ in part by AT&T and the Thoreau Institute” and it is not readily visible in the reference provided. Do you mean that it was funded by these two things? Recorded by them perhaps? Please make this clearer.
I like that you put the reference for the main Walden Wood Project, but you need a reference to support your claim that the concert was “held to expand the mission”. That requires a more specific reference tying the album/concert and this idea of advancing the project’s mission forward through its release. I would suggest using this source 1 to identify the concert as some sort of benefit for the Walden Woods Project. This source also has a lot more information about the background of the album that I would suggest using.
I would suggest adding somewhere in the background section that Vince Mendoza was the primary arranger and conductor for the album. You can use the AllMusic reference to support this.
I would include information about the orchestra, “the 66-piece El Nino Orchestra” to be more exact. You could use this source 2 for information on the orchestra. It also identifies the concert as a benefit, which might be useful for you.
I look through the source to verify whether or not the artists sang two songs and I could not find the information in the resource given. Could you please either direct my attention to where the information is in the article or provide another resource to back this claim up? You could use the LA Times source I recommended above as it references “two allotted songs”.
You repeat that the album has traditional pop songs by saying: “It features music with the traditional pop genre” and “It contains pop standards” in the same section/paragraph. It may be best to delete the first instance and refocus by having the first half of the paragraph focuses on the album’s connection with ATT&T, the Thoreau Institute, and Walden Wood Project, and the second half on the actual music. It may be even better to split these two ideas into two separate paragraphs to better guide the reader through this information.
According to this source 3, the covers are for “pop, jazz, and blues standards”. I would agree with this source as songs like “Good Morning Heartache” are not exactly pure traditional pop (it is definitely a jazz/blue standard). This source may also provide some more information on the availability/release of the album. The LA Times source I recommended above also refers to the music as jazz and pop standards, and includes the time period “of the '30s, '40s and '50s” that you can incorporate somehow.
The phrase “edginess version” does not make sense, and looks more so like you are trying to force the use of a quote. Please revise this by either using the quote in a different way, incorporating a different quote, or removing the quotes altogether.
Remove the transition “however” before William Ruhlmann.
I would suggest revising the sentences about the AllMusic review so that it flows more seamlessly together as it reads somewhat awkwardly now.
I am confused by your use of ellipsis in the Sonic.net quote. You only cut out one word, so it seems like it would be better to just use the quote in full, rather than creating an impression that the sentence/idea is much longer than what it really is.

Final word[edit]

@Carbrera:Great job overall with the article. I can tell you put a lot of work into it. I have addressed parts in which I find the wording/sentence structure to be somewhat awkward and in need of revision. I also suggested some sources to help expand the “Background” section. There are some key bits missing (information about the orchestra, etc.) and some problematic absences (such as saying the album is just traditional pop when that is not the case). Once my comments are addressed, then I will give it another look, and provide you with more feedback. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Second pass-through[edit]

@Anotheronewiki: Great job with the edits so far. Here are some of my comments from my second pass-through of the article. Also, @Carbrera: is it okay that someone else is working on this? Did they get your approval?

The AllMusic section still reads extremely awkwardly to me for the following reasons: 1) you have the word "praise" in close proximity and this needs to be changed for variation and I believe the repetition of the word shows a little bias by highlighting a little too much of the positive from a mixed review and 2) I find the quotes to be unnecessary and cumbersome here. I would recommend paraphrasing (remember it is always highly encouraged to paraphrase a majority of the time and only quote when absolutely necessary/when the exacting word is important). For instance, I would say something like the following: (William Ruhlmann from AllMusic awarded the record three out of a five stars, praising the artists' familiarity with the music. He highlighted Mark Isham's trumpet solos and the covers of "You've Changed", "But Beautiful" and "At Last" as standouts from the album, but had mixed feelings toward Sheryl Crow and Björk's contributions.) I would use something like that to make that section smoother. Since this review takes up a majority of the "Critical reception" section, it should be as strong as possible.
You didn't correct the "which Henley is associated with" comment, which I had commented on above.
I still believe a short sentence about Vince Mendoza being the primary arranger and conductor for the album should be mentioned in the background somewhere.
The infobox still only has traditional pop for the genre of the album; add jazz and blues.
Remove the transition “however” before William Ruhlmann.
I would recommend breaking up the "Background" section into two paragraphs by having the first half of the paragraph focuses on the album’s connection with ATT&T, the Thoreau Institute, and Walden Wood Project, and the second half on the actual music. I would recommend having the "Don Henley" line be the start of the second paragraph.
I would include the fact that a majority of the songs were originally performed in the '30s, '40s and '50s, as supported by the LA Times source.
The phrase "added edginess" does not make sense, and looks more so like you are trying to force the use of the "edginess" quote. Please revise this by either using the quote in a different way, incorporating a different quote, or removing the quotes altogether.

Once these comments are addressed, I will give it another pass-through and then I will mostly likely pass it. Some of these comments were from my first review so please make sure to cover everything that I say or provide a reason for why you either disagree or not understand a part of my review. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Final final word[edit]

@Anotheronewiki: Thank you for addressing my comments. I revised a few minors things. This is a definite ✓ Pass. Good luck with your future edits on here and I look forward to working with you further in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.