Talk:Hung for the Holidays/GA1

Latest comment: 11 years ago by Вик Ретлхед 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: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 07:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

This article seems short and it shouldn't take me more than a couple of days to review it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Review
  • Intro
  1. The prose isn't very well written. For example: The EP did not commercially fare as well as his previous album, and also received negative critical reviews→The EP wasn't commercially successful as his previous album and was panned by music critics.
  1. There should be a sentence or two about the recording process.
  1. Hung for the Holidays was aided by singing lessons he was taking at the time.→Hung took singing lessons before the start of the recording sessions.
  1. The SputnikMusic review should be omitted because it is written by Meatplow (user).
  1. The review from The Trades doesn't appear to be written by notable critic. After a quick Google search, I haven't found any publication that uses reviews by Tony Pascarella.
  1. The AllMusic review is reliable and should stay.
  1. The list doesn't have duration of the songs, nor contains the writer or composer.
  1. The list of personnel is missing.
  1. The overall duration of the record should be added to the info-box.

Final words: Honestly, I don't think this is a GA material. The article is too short and is missing some essential sections mentioned in the WP:MOS-ALBUM. I appreciate the effort, but this topic simply doesn't have the potential to be promoted to good article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

  • I fixed all the stuff you said above. However, I would like to make it clear that this is not a FAC and that Good articles honor good quality articles that are short, so saying that this article is "too short" would be unnecessary. I do thank you for doing the review, though, and I hope you do good when you review The Age of Plastic. 和DITOREtails 14:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
If you're not satisfied with the review, we can ask for a second opinion. I'll ask the community if the review you mentioned could be used in the article. Cheers.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply
Another things to address
No, it is not a reliable source. But regardless of its reliability, those kind of speculations have no place in encyclopedia.
Gave you an example how to do it with AllMusic.
Never mind that.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Conclusion:I think this article needs a serious re-building to meet the GA criteria. As far as I noted, the prose is poorly written, it is not broad in its coverage, it contains trivia and basic grammatical errors. In its current state it is barely a C-class article, and far away for B. I am closing the review as failed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:37, 2 September 2013 (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.