Wikipedia

Talk:Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album/GA1

< Talk:Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Eviolite in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 2 years ago38 comments2 people in discussion

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Eviolite (talk · contribs) 03:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I can start this.

Referencing

edit

Ref numbers from Special:Permalink/1061499369#References.

First of all, I don't think the massive full copy-paste of the credits into ref 7 is necessary, nor the listing of a very large amount of cast members in ref 10 (the episode itself.) Also, ref 7 has an unknown parameter publisherid, apparently.

Removed the lists in those refs; in the article edit history (and talkpage) there were significant edit wars relating to two of the singers appearing in the credits at all, which is why I thought it would be useful. I assume the notes in the tracklist section suffice this. Also, the publisherid parameter was recommend (a decade ago, mind) at the talkpage to help credit this disputed thing. I personally don't see the harm in retaining a useful identifying code, like the isbn of a CD; I have moved this detail to the "title" (which it follows on the spine), tell me if this is inappropriate. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

There is a lot of inconsistency between date formats and linking/unlinking publishers and works, even with the name of some works ("EW" vs "Entertainment Weekly", for example), would recommend fixing though I guess it's not too big of a deal.

I have changed the "EW", will look to more thoroughly apply consistency to refs after reading the rest of the review. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I am a bit concerned about the reliability of some of these sources, though:

  • [8] (Cinemablend), [9] (Theater Mania), [19] (Showbiz Cheat Sheet), [20] (BroadwayWorld) aren't used to ref anything major, but they do not seem like particularly high quality sources based on previous discussions at RSN and their own "about" pages. Recommend finding extra references if possible.
  • Coming from the film and theater side, Cinemablend is one of the better listicle-style (content farm) websites, indeed they don't do listicles and I'd rank them with Comic Book News; Theater Mania and BroadwayWorld are (as I find them) very good sources, not just for theater but for entertainment generally, and the latter at least gets exclusive interviews with actors; Cheat Sheet is another content farm, and while they don't cite their sources, the aggregation of news from other sources (their USP) is easy to see, the only issue being that it does give off skeeviness and does sometimes use Wikipedia details without citing. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
    Cinemablend is being used to source the list of songs in the episode; other sources in the article do the same, so I've replaced it.
    Theater Mania is a supporting reference that effectively duplicates liner notes information (or lack thereof), so I've removed it.
    Similarly, Cheat Sheet was used for its aggregation of information, but as the Wikipedia article doesn't have a lot of details on Morrison's Grinch turn, the other source there seems to suffice; also removed.
    BroadwayWorld is the "other source" for Morrison's Grinch; as a musical theater show, this is particularly in the source's wheelhouse. Other BroadwayWorld articles are used to source information relating to the Grammy charity, which is also the expertise. (Again, I find this a strong source.) Kingsif (talk) 05:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Thanks. Looking at the RSN discussion again it seems the main concern was with regurgitating press releases and the info it references is just basic info about who sang what so I think it's fine.
  • I'm not convinced [21] (LA Music Blog) is reliable at all - it self-describes as a blog and their about page does not show any sort of editorial policy. This is a pretty big issue since it is the sole source for many statements in the article.
  • Their about page doesn't describe an editorial policy, but makes it fairly clear that it retains staff ("Our bloggers write album reviews, cover live music events, interview artists and industry professionals"), and since it's an album review, I accepted the unknown element. And this was in 2010, when blogging was the cool way of talking about pop culture, and I assume that is why it describes like that. Applying to other sources below, too, there's always been a bit more leniency for sourcing reviews when it is still clear that someone has had to approve publishing of said review.
    This source is also used for some of the music section, describing the genre of some of the songs; I think these things (i.e. what anyone with working ears can know) fall under WP:PLOT enough that using a weaker source is non-controversial, but tell me what you think about that. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm still not entirely sure about this. The current state of the site is decidedly unprofessional but the domain could have easily changed hands in the intervening years (the Twitter account for the "old" LA Music Blog hasn't posted in nearly three years, and the links are all dead.). I also don't really see why that sentence indicates an editorial team (obviously it has staff of some sort, otherwise it wouldn't have any content at all.) However, I do agree that the info it references is all rather basic and more like a plot-style description, so I think it can work.
  • [22] (About.com) is considered a no-consensus source at WP:RSP (under Dotdash), with some treating it as a largely self-published source. The author, Bill Lamb, does not appear to be a well-established expert. It is also used to reference several sentences so would prefer if it could be swapped out.
  • [24] (Gawker) is an unreliable source according to RSP, and is used to reference a sentence in Wikipedia's voice. I recommend removing the speculative part of that paragraph altogether.
  • I've removed that paragraph entirely, even though that seems to be the most popular song, it may be excessive to talk about the specific parts sung when there isn't such coverage of the other songs; I have kept the source for its review parts. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Not sure what's happened with ref [27] (Amazon), which has the same line repeated twice.
  • It's two cite templates inside one ref; one is the Amazon page (US) and the other is the stable url to the UK version of the page, to source the dates for both. I think you can get to the UK version from the Amazon.com page, but I added the stable url of it to pre-empt any comment that it only sourced the US date. Kingsif (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • [34] (LA Times Blogs Show Tracker) is a blog. I suppose it's fine for indicating the existence of a particular opinion though.

Prose

edit

Lead

edit
  • The album was released digitally on November 9, 2010, with physical copies available from November 16, 2010, and accompanies the second season episode "A Very Glee Christmas", which aired on December 7, 2010. is a bit long and unwieldy.
  • The album debuted at the top position of the Billboard Soundtracks chart, as well as peaking at number three on the Billboard 200. Use consistent tenses.
  • Critical reception was mixed- would be helpful to include a description of some of the negative reception in the lede since the two sentences afterward are just praise

Background and production

edit
  • Prior to Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album, the cast had released six albums and/or EPs in the United States, all of which were hugely commercially successful, with three of these topping the Billboard 200 albums chart and all five released in the United Kingdom reaching the top five of the Official UK albums chart. - would also recommend splitting this sentence.
    • hugely commercially successful - would remove "hugely" since not specifically used in sources and a bit puffery-ish
  • The album was produced by Adam Anders and Glee creator Ryan Murphy, executive produced by Glee executives Dante Di Loreto and Brad Falchuk, with songs produced by Anders and Peer Åström. The constant repetition of "produced" is awkward, and I think the comma before "executive produced" should be replaced with an "and".
  • In the context of the "A Very Glee Christmas" episode, "The Most Wonderful Day of the Year" is sung at the start of the episode as the kids of the glee club decorate a Christmas tree with stolen ornaments, "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch" is performed as Sue Sylvester destroys the glee club's Christmas decorations, "We Need a Little Christmas" is performed by the glee club carolling at their school, abruptly cut-off when they are heckled, and "Baby, It's Cold Outside" is performed at their private school by Kurt Hummel and Blaine Anderson, followed immediately by glee club director Will Schuester arriving at the school to ask Kurt's advice; Rachel Berry's "Merry Christmas Darling" is also sung without much context, on a stage with a Christmas scene behind, while her other song, "Last Christmas", a duet with Finn Hudson, was more strongly integrated into their ongoing relationship plot. absolutely needs to be split. Also, per MOS:FICTION the plot elements should be clearly differentiated from the real-life production, so I think it might even be warranted to mark this paragraph as its own subsection.
  • It is talking about the plot in the real world; the last two sentences particularly (now that BlueMoonset removed the "segue" mention earlier, when there was more) are far from being fiction. I have gone about reframing the paragraph to make it less fictional, while also breaking it up. What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • He noted that "sometimes the songs drive the plot concepts", saying that Murphy is a big fan of George Michael, and so chose to have the characters perform "Last Christmas", and they felt that "Jingle Bells" was the most Christmas-y song, prompting its inclusion is also a bit unwieldy, and there should be a ref at the end of the sentence with the quote.

Music

edit
  • As mentioned above, I strongly suggest remove the speculative part of the second paragraph here as it is cited to an unreliable, gossipy source.

Release

edit
  • ugly Christmas sweaters: I don't see why the opinionated qualifier "ugly" is necessary here.

Critical reception

edit
  • Why is allmusic in lowercase?
  • criticizing this - what is "this" referring to exactly?
  • The subject of the last clause - found the album's style distinctly negative, criticizing this - in this case, "the album's style". Nifty grammar trick to avoid repeating noun phrases. Kingsif (talk) 05:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • It would help to reintroduce Lamb and his publication in this section.

Chart performance

edit
  • As of August 2013, Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album has sold 1,080,000 copies in the US. - any more recent figures?
Alright, that's unfortunate. I suppose not many people would be buying copies of a TV show album more than a few years after it aired though so it's not that much of an issue. eviolite (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • staying for this single week is a bit off, again with the "this"

That's all I got. eviolite (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA criteria list

edit
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
    See above.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    I'm ticking 2c as everying is cited, though the citation quality could be improved as above.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
    A bit on the longer side but nothing warranting a split.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
    Lots of changes in recent days but no edit warring.
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    Images are illustrative, free, and captioned.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
  • @Eviolite: Again, thank you for reviewing this. I think my replies may be a bit rambly (what can I say, I like my reviews like I like my discussions), so to summarize:
    * I've removed several of the sources you weren't sure about, either because they were unnecessary with other sources present or a stronger replacement was added. The ones that have not been removed are either, IMO, strong sources or are fine enough to support a review/opinion and non-controversial/PLOT statements; they only source those things.
    * I have removed the speculative paragraph in the music section, because it also felt UNDUE on reflection.
    * Things for you to check: I have rephrased the paragraph about episode context, I have added more to the criticism in the lead, and I have moved the CD ID to the title line of the liner notes ref.
    * Things I haven't done: There's one instance of the "this" that I've left, I think "ugly" sweaters is fine, and I can't see a way around using "produced" when it's technical.
    Thanks, Kingsif (talk) 05:45, 22 December 2021 (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.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Glee:_The_Music,_The_Christmas_Album/GA1&oldid=1061811147"