Talk:Barbra Streisand's Greatest Hits Volume 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbra Streisand's Greatest Hits Vol. 2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110914044524/http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=Barbra+Streisand&titel=Greatest+Hits+Vol%2E+2&cat=a to http://charts.org.nz/showitem.asp?interpret=Barbra+Streisand&titel=Greatest+Hits+Vol.+2&cat=a
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110831204012/http://uktop40.republika.pl/najlep%20sprzalbumy%20uk%201979.html to http://uktop40.republika.pl/najlep%20sprzalbumy%20uk%201979.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Barbra Streisand's Greatest Hits Volume 2/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Soon...MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Infobox

• I'm assuming you took the genres from the ALL mUsic review "It was also a genre-defining album in terms of the emergence of a post-'60s contemporary pop music that drew upon the rock revolution to redefine classic pop for a new generation." Shouldn't Tradional pop be added as well?
• Shouldn't Charles Koppelman be added here as executive producer?

 Done

Lead

• I would add Australia and Canada as well to the list of countries certified.
• Perhaps saying that some songs were covers of others.
• Add something from the first paragraph of "Promotion and development" that seems relevant. The part of American DJ Gary Guthrie...

 Done

Promotion and development

• to promote the singer's then-upcoming greatest hits album, Barbra Streisand's Greatest Hits Volume 2 → source?
• the version that appears on the record → which record?
• to which they accepted → not sure if you should include they breach the contract but eventually "cleaned up the royalty issue"
• Columbia Records released the compilation on November 15, 1978 → source?
• The label also issued an 8-track cartridge version of the album in 1974 → wrong date for sure
• " The album was later released in a compact disc format on July 6, 1987" → so what they released first?

 Done

Critical reception

• music critics → link to music journalism

• No more reviews?

I wish there were, but unfortunately I cannot find any more. Carbrera (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

• Try to add something more from the AllMusic review. As it was due to her genre switching she was able to release this album.

Added sentence about the difference in her hits from the '60s and '70s. Carbrera (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

 Done

Commercial performance

• "and would continue to do so for three consecutive weeks" → Not relevant, many albums have done so.
• "The record spent a total of 46 consecutive weeks " → we don't know if they were consecutive, unless you can provide a source for such, please remove.
• "the record and Streisand's" → the album and Streisand's
• "It would later be changed to" → It would later be re-certified to
• "for the week " → on the week
• "Overall, it spent a total of 20 consecutive weeks charting in Canada" → same as previous

 Done

Track listing

• I would strong advise to add the albums the tracks were taken from. See example[1].

 Done

Personnel

• Missing Stevie Wonder, David Wolfert and many more songwriters. See the AllMusic review

 Done

• Not sure if you would like to add some arrangement and other technicians as well?

Charts

• Everything is ok.

Certifications

• I will take your call and judgment on the Hong Kong certification as I can't access it.

Done – Is there a popup or block on your computer? The link seems to work finely for me. Carbrera (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: No. I just haven't been able to access Wayback machine lately, I'm using chrome I guess it has to do with it. What browser do you use to access it? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I use chrome as well. Carbrera (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It gives me an error, bad gateway. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done

See also

• Fine.

Citations

• Citations → Footnotes

 Done

Bibliography

• Bibliography → Sources

 Done

External links

• Please remove dicogs is an ureliable source.

Not done – And while I agree to some extent, this is often included at the bottom of several good articles, like Rebel Heart, This Is What the Truth Feels Like, and Joanne. Carbrera (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

Joanne is not a good article. Two exceptions don't make a rule, please exclude or give me a reason for that external link to be there. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 22:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Well, the template was created for good reason. And per this discussion, the use of Discogs templates is justified for being beneficial to the user; it is used to provide scans of the records and serves as a fairly comprehensive database for the user. Similar to how iMDb is used as an external link for movie articles but should not be used as a source within the article itself. Hope this helps. Carbrera (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC).

 Done

Overall GA review

• Feel free to make the changes recommended. Please ping me when you are done.

• @MarioSoulTruthFan: – Thank you for the comprehensive review! I have addressed your comments to the best of my capabilities. Please let me know if anything else should be completed because I believe I covered it all. Regards, Carbrera (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC).

@Carbrera: this weekend I will complete the review. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)