Talk:Bad Hair Day/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Gen. Quon in topic GA Review

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: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 00:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm such a big fan of "Weird Al", I always find it a pleasure to read his articles on Wikipedia. What better way than to review it to see if it's GA? Gimme a few, I'll be right back...

First things first, the easy stuff.

  • Files, images & sound:
    • Album cover. I would suggest getting it from a better source. I don't think some dude's weblog counts as a viable source in this regard.
      I changed it so that it is a link to the review site Allmusic.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Amish family riding a buggy. Everything looks okay here.
    • Coolio. Looks fine.
    • "Amish Paradise" sample. Not too long, and adequately illustrates its point.
  • Article stability: Seems peaceful.
  • Sourcing:
    • Cite #18 has an error message.
      Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Uh oh... I see this article uses Exclaim!. I once tried to use a source like this only to be informed that website was blacklisted. Was this always the case, or has the ban been lifted?
      I'm not really sure. I can't find any place on Wikipedia that says that it is a bad source, and I never got a blacklist message when I added it. Maybe it has. It has an entry on WP:RSN, but no one said it was bad.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
    • Seems mostly to rely on officially-endorsed Yankovic sources, but not by much in comparison to the rest. Website citations appear to be written like book citations, though, as the name of the site (which I think should go in the "publisher" field) is treated as "work". I could be wrong about this one, but I think that's not right.
      I took 'publisher' to mean the company that published the website. Both field are available for a web citation, so I thought it was OK. For instance Ref. 7: The Onion publishes The A.V. Club. While The A.V. Club is the source being cited, I added The Onion since it is the site's publisher.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 18:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now, for the harder stuff - the body of the article.

Lead

"...It was Yankovic's third studio album to be self-produced. The album produced an array of hit comedy singles; lead single "Amish Paradise" (which lampoons both Coolio's "Gangsta's Paradise" and the Amish lifestyle} charted at number 53 on the Billboard Hot 100, while "Gump", which parodies "Lump" by the Presidents of the United States of America and the movie Forrest Gump, charted at 102. The musical styles on the album are built around parodies and pastiches of pop and rock music of the mid-1990s, largely targeting alternative rock and hip-hop alike. The album also includes style parodies, imitations of specific artists like They Might Be Giants and Elvis Costello."Amish Paradise" caused a minor controversy after rapper Coolio expressed distaste at having his song spoofed by Yankovic, although the two later made amends."

  • Completely rephrased.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "...with many critics praising "Amish Paradise"." I think we need to say "..."Amish Paradise" in particular", because having looked at the Reception section those who said they liked it also expressed that they liked other things on the album too, this was just their favorite so far as I could tell.
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't need to reiterate how "Amish Paradise" charted. Any reference to "Amish Paradise" becoming one of his signature songs should probably go in the first paragraph (when amended closer to what I wrote above).
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "...sold 1,317,000 copies in the US in 1996 alone. It is the highest sales tally..." --> "...sold 1,317,000 copies in the US in 1996 alone, the highest sales tally..."
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
  • "Bad Hair Day was Yankovic's sixth Gold record, and went on to be certified Platinum for sales of over one million copies in the United States. The album also went Platinum in Canada." It went Gold where? According to which certification company? And if possible could you date these certifications?
    Fixed.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Production
"...who brought a real drill and a human tooth; the two took turns drilling the tooth to create a genuine sound effect."
Actually, even better: "The Rembrandts had also given approval when Yankovic asked, but..." LazyBastardGuy 18:50, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Controversy
Release

Whew! That was definitely much harder than the UHF review. Still rewarding all the same. I know how eager you'll be to fix this up, so I'll just put it on hold and not tell you for how long.

Thanks for reviewing this one! I think I responded to all our your concerns. How does it look now?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
I went ahead and made a few changes myself, either things I missed the first two times around (and didn't want to bother you about since it would just be easier for me to fix) or stuff I had new ideas for upon seeing them again. By the way, with regard to Rolling Stone Record Guide, I believe what I meant to say there is (even if only Rolling Stone is wikilinked), but you seemed to get what I was saying. So now, I am quite satisfied, and your hard work has paid-off. It's a definite pass.
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.