Talk:Hung for the Holidays/GA2
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. Longest unreviewed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Good Article Checklist
- Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
- Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
- Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
- Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
Good Article review progress box
|
- Disambig links:OK
- Reference check: OK - No issues with any of the sources used.
Comments: This article is very short, but I still checked it through. The lead is very short, but given that the article text is also very short, that is typically fine. Though I'd like some expansion, some details on the sounds and I found the actual reviews to be a bit shorter than I'd like it to be. Meaning that it is on the edge of the context I'd like to see.
The prose needs some work on sentences like "A second album was first announced in May 2004, and the EP was recorded during the summer time of that year." For the lead, this should be much tighter and stronger. This lacks impact and so does the next sentence.
- "Hung for the Holidays includes covers of Christmas carols and songs as well as holiday thoughts by Hung.[4]" Should not be the first sentence of "Development, content and release".
- He said that it "will include original songs and cover songs." "There will be more bands this time. That's all I can tell you." Three fragments, all needing in-line citations per policy.
- Combining and
Done 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Combining and
- "Hung also revealed that he was taking singing lessons before starting the recording sessions." - Hung announced... not "also revealed".
- When interviewed by MTV News in June 2004, he revealed that recording was "gonna be a much slower process than the first time. Right now I'm concentrating on just picking songs... starting to practice them and things like that." - said - not "revealed" and any quote needs an inline citation.
- He also claimed that producers would submit the songs to Koch Records, and that the label "has some ideas and stuff, and we'll see. It's still early — very, very early."[2] - claimed? Said. This makes it sound like he is being deceptive. Word choice matters.
- Hung for the Holidays was released on October 2004, although it originally had been scheduled for release in September. - Rearrange this, flipping September's intentional release, but the delay to October.
- Done 和DITOREtails 06:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- A limited number of copies for the album included a fold-out Christmas ornament.[4] - Should be below all the content and development details.
- Hung for the Holidays was not as commercially successful as Inspiration, selling only 35,000 copies.[6] It reached number 22 on the Billboard Independent Albums chart.[7] - Expand the second sentence and rework the first.
- Allmusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine gave the album one out of five stars, calling it "the cheapest-sounding record in recent memory; it sounds as if it was recorded in less time that it takes to play." - Cite because of the quote.
Please add additional reviews or details like Huffington Post labeling it the "best worst" - [1] Or it being labeled a "cult classic" from NY Daily News [2] He did do some signings and such following the release.[3] I'm seeing a lot of little things, but just a few more would round this out better. I'm going to place this one hold for fixes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
- Passed. I think its actually rather amazing that I was able to dig up some extra sources to help round it out. It may not be completely comprehensive, but it is probably about all the attention this ever received in proper sources. With that in mind, everything is relative and this meets the criteria. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)