Talk:Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s/GA1

GA Review

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: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 04:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• and succeeded in 2000 → add "was" before "succeeded"
  • Done
• Please add which genres the reviews approached, the fact that the author coined new, non-existing terms during his rewiews, and what exactly critics praised and criticized in the book, to expand the lead
  • I added a sentence, but I avoided listing genres; readers will get the point with "a variety of", and only one coined term is reported in the sources. Dan56 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

• Please include ALT for the picture
  • Done. Dan56 (talk) 22:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Content and scope

• Among the styles of music covered throughout include → I would add Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s in the sentence after "throughout" for a better flow
  • Added "the collection".
• decade's major developments while coining → add comma before "while"
  • "Don’t use a comma before while when you mean 'during the same time.'
• categorized as "Gone But Not Forgotten" → you should include what this is exactly (a column,...)
  • It explains beforehand: "a core collection of albums before 1980 ... out of print records" Dan56 (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Publication and reception

• in October 1990 by Pantheon Books.[2] It was reprinted → to avoid short, clipped sentences, please rewrite to: "in October 1990 by Pantheon Books.[2] and was reprinted..."
  • Done.
• We don't need an extra, one-line paragraph for the book's release details. This could be easily combined with the second paragraph and would look better aestethically
  • Nine long sentences in one paragraph makes too long a paragraph, for my taste. I joined it with the second paragraph, but split Lawson's critical assessment into a separate paragraph.
• We need an 'overall-sentence' for the reception of the book, such as: "Upon its release, Christgau's Record Guide: The '80s was received mixed reviews from critics."
  • There's no source available to verify a summary; I am pushing it with the lead summarizing it as "generally well received".
• how his interest extends beyond individual recording artists and into "the state of rock and in the richness of its culture"; how he "constantly challenges artists, fans and other critics to demand more of themselves and their favorites"; and "why he nurtures new and significant developments, however uncommercial or controversial." → please replace all semicolons with normal commas, since this is an enumeration and not separate sentences
  • Semicolons can be used "between items in a list or series if any of the items contain commas." They do not have to be sentences that are separated. I used semicolons, to avoid too many commas.
• while noting a partiality → comma before "while"
  • "Don’t use a comma before while when you mean 'during the same time.'
• citing his review of the 1987 X album See How We Are → to make the message of this short sentence clearer, I would revise to: "citing his review of the 1987 X album See How We Are as an example for the latter
  • Done.
• for popular music, and the journalistic equivalent of Bob Dylan or Neil Young: "Quite simply → This is an everlasting sentence; please break it into: "for popular music. Hilburn also likened Christgau as the journalistic equivalent of Bob Dylan or Neil Young, further writing: "Quite simply..."
  • I broke it up earlier.
• while the book covers only → comma before "while"
  • Done.
• John Lawson of the School Library Journal said → I think the sentence would flow better if you added a "that" after "said"
  • With a comma already there, there's enough separation with the pause, in my opinion, without needing "that".
• was less impressed → this has an unencyclopedic tone; please change to "gave a mixed review"
  • I revised it.
• A follow-up to The '80s → Even though it may be repetitive, please use the book's full name
  • Unless I am missing a guideline or policy, I don't believe using the subtitle or shorthand is bad writing, especially when the full title has been repeated earlier several times.
• singled out The '80s volume → same as above
  • Same as above. Dan56 (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

References

• As far as I checked them, the references do cover the assertations made in this article (I can't verify the books, so I trust you with this!)
• No dead links! Good job!

Outcome

•  On hold — Minor issues that can be easily solved in 7 days. Good job! Please ping me whenever you're ready... Best; Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • @Cartoon network freak:; I addressed most of the issues, commenting on a few I didn't. Dan56 (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Dan56: While I adjusted just a few things, I think this article meets the GA criteria now, thus I'm passing it! Congratulations! I also have a nomination waiting to be reviewed for a long time—if you're interested—or you could pick any other nomination of mine in the "Albums", "Songs" and "Other music articles" categories. Best regards; Cartoon network freak (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

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.