Talk:Looking 4 Myself/GA1
Latest comment: 11 years ago by Et3rnal in topic GA Review
GA Review
editThe 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: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) 08:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Lead
- Avoid repetitious wording; album is repeated 13 times in the lead alone
Done.
- released on June 8, 2012. The album was released -> released as well
Altered to different wording.
- Inspired by both his travelling -> this is poorly worded. What is meant by "his travelling"?
In simple colloquial English context, it means "going to places". Anyway, I've changed the sentence.
- and the album's title track, -> how is he inspired by the album's title track?
Changed sentence.
- This whole sentence in general needs a lot of refinement. "Usher approached the album with a more experimental sound, that is still relevant in the [current] era of music."? This is very vague.
Altered sentence.
- Defined as "revolutionary pop" by Usher, -> to avoid repetition, I think "the singer" would work better here.
Done
- critics noted that the album incorporates the genres R&B, pop, hip hop, electronic, europop and dubstep. -> Not grammatically correct.
How?
- while "Scream" peaked in the top-ten on the Hot 100 and several other countries. "Lemme See" peaked at number two on the former chart and in the top-fifty on the latter. -> You probably mean the Hot 100 and R&B, but some readers might get it confused with the Hot 100 and "several other countries."
Altered
- show, show
Omitting the first show would be bad grammar, while omitting the second one and only including events would be incorrect.
- I don't know if "events" is the right word here
I don't understand how it isn't
- music critics. Most critics
Altered
- album's diversification in music genres -> Not proper
Altered
- The figure is a significant decrease relative to his previous effort -> I don't think "relative" works here. Maybe try "in comparison".
Done.
- The low first-week sales were targeted towards the album not appealing to his core audience, and the music industry evolving throughout the years. -> Nothing about this sentence makes sense. How are low sales targeted at something? The music industry evolving?
Altered, but what's wrong with "the music industry evolving"?
- As of September 2012, the album has sold 373,800 copies in the United States, according to Nielsen SoundScan. -> According to Nielsen SoundScan, the album has sold 373,800 copies in the United States as of September 2012.
What the Good article criteria are not – Imposing your own stylistic preferences or national variety of English on the article text.
Background
- Link Grammy Award
Done
- which was a commercial success and received mixed reviews. -> This is too NPOV. Just tell us facts.
WP:YESPOV Avoid stating opinions as facts...
- Again, avoid repetitious wording
Such as?
- Twitter account
Done
- While on his hiatus -> While on hiatus
Done
- Actually, it isn't a follow-up to R v R, more so to Versus...
I thought it would be logical saying it proceeds the last studio album, and not EP...
- he mainly traveled to various locations to listen to music which he "felt was really significant in terms of energy." -> Vague
That's as much information he gives on the subject, so if it's vague it's Usher's problem not mine...
- Though it was Australian electronic music duo Empire of the Sun that inspired Usher to produce the album's title track, with producer Rico Love, which lead to Usher collaborating with other producers he normally wouldn't work with or admired, such as Diplo. Looking 4 Myself was chosen as the album's title because it sums up Usher's hiatus, on his "musical journey." -> Needs a lot of work. First sentence switches tense and is a run-on. The next sentence has no flow or cohesion with the last.
Switched sentence so it [hopefully] flows better
- Whilst producing the album, Usher's intentions were to create one "that was not genre-specific but just experimental", how he felt and what he enjoyed listening to. -> "Whilst producing the album" is unnecessary and poorly worded.
Re-worded
- Love was interviewed by Billboard, where -> Why where?
What's wrong with "where"?
- he spoke about his relationship and experience with artists. -> How does this have anything to do with this section? Also it would be "relationships"
Removed this section, along with "where"
- That's kind of a big quote. Consider making a blockquote, paraphrasing or cutting down.
Changed to block quote
- The next sentence needs work as well. Repetitious and doesn't flow into quote.
Reduced repetition, should flow now that it's a new paragraph
- For the album, Usher was under the management of Grace Miguel -> For the album?
Changed
- Jonnetta Patton, for a second time in 2008. -> Second time, or second time in 2008?
The former
- The album art -> album art? You mean cover art?
They refer to the same thing
- The album art and track listing for both the standard and deluxe edition of the album -> album, album.
Changed to cover to avoid repetition
- This article would benefit from a third-part copy-edit. As you can see, the grammar is not satisfactory throughout. Also, I wouldn't consider Popdust a reliable source. I'll check back after a thorough copy-edit. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- SO are you going to have a third-party editor give it a copy-edit?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- You want someone else to copy-edit? I don't understand. Et3rnal 21:33, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- I thought the whole point of you being here was so YOU could review it, picking out bits that need improving so the nominator or anyone else could address them.Et3rnal 22:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't give me any attitude. Secondly, no. It is not the reviewers job to highlight every baby step for you. My job is to give you a large scope of issues and advice on how to improve it so you can do it yourself. I already posted a ton of problems in the first two sections. This article needs an independent third-copy edit. What do you think, no one has ever asked me to get one done? It's common practice, especially when the article in question has so many basic grammatical errors.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I don't know where you got the idea of me trying to come out with an attitude, but if you get offended by something which wasn't even supposed to come out as offensive, then you seriously are insecure. And I don't remember writing "I thought you're job was to help me with everything single detail!" but of course, we have to make everything a hyperbole. And what the hell is common practice? So it's common practice to do a half ass review and then tell the nominator to get someone else to copy edit the article because you're to lazy to properly review it? I've seen many GA reviews where the reviewer goes in depth and properly tells the nominator how to improve, but obviously, that's not common practice. I've had enough of ignorant ass holes like you in this community, and so I'm going to do what I should have done ages ago. Good riddance.Et3rnal 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are such an ignorant asshole, I'm glad you're gone. If you don't recognize sass when you give it, then you have serious problems. I fucking spoon fed you the first two sections, breaking down every possible issue you had. And no, its not the reviewer who's lazy here, it's the fucking nominator who produced a half-ass job of an article, and just send it off to GAC so a naive reviewer can just spell out every fucking issue. Read your reaction asshole, obviously you're the one who's insecure. All I did was remind you about being patient and civil. You, on the other hand, are a rude and arrogant joke. Good riddance. Go write "Usher" 1,080 times and see if someone passes it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think someone's a bit mad? You should take your own advice and take a chill pill, it's only Wikipedia bro. Et3rnal 22:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
- You are such an ignorant asshole, I'm glad you're gone. If you don't recognize sass when you give it, then you have serious problems. I fucking spoon fed you the first two sections, breaking down every possible issue you had. And no, its not the reviewer who's lazy here, it's the fucking nominator who produced a half-ass job of an article, and just send it off to GAC so a naive reviewer can just spell out every fucking issue. Read your reaction asshole, obviously you're the one who's insecure. All I did was remind you about being patient and civil. You, on the other hand, are a rude and arrogant joke. Good riddance. Go write "Usher" 1,080 times and see if someone passes it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 02:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Right, I don't know where you got the idea of me trying to come out with an attitude, but if you get offended by something which wasn't even supposed to come out as offensive, then you seriously are insecure. And I don't remember writing "I thought you're job was to help me with everything single detail!" but of course, we have to make everything a hyperbole. And what the hell is common practice? So it's common practice to do a half ass review and then tell the nominator to get someone else to copy edit the article because you're to lazy to properly review it? I've seen many GA reviews where the reviewer goes in depth and properly tells the nominator how to improve, but obviously, that's not common practice. I've had enough of ignorant ass holes like you in this community, and so I'm going to do what I should have done ages ago. Good riddance.Et3rnal 01:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- First of all, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't give me any attitude. Secondly, no. It is not the reviewers job to highlight every baby step for you. My job is to give you a large scope of issues and advice on how to improve it so you can do it yourself. I already posted a ton of problems in the first two sections. This article needs an independent third-copy edit. What do you think, no one has ever asked me to get one done? It's common practice, especially when the article in question has so many basic grammatical errors.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:49, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- SO are you going to have a third-party editor give it a copy-edit?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
- This article would benefit from a third-part copy-edit. As you can see, the grammar is not satisfactory throughout. Also, I wouldn't consider Popdust a reliable source. I'll check back after a thorough copy-edit. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay guys. I just read those comments and felt like I am back in time when I had fights with other users and from a 3rd side it feels bad to be honest. Come on, don't just nit picky about some things. You are both good editors and fellows to me. I think that you Nathan should be more picky about comments and try help him how should re-write the sentences and stuff, because I know how much energy he put in writting the article. While you Et3rnal, please try to be more confident and cooperative (however, this is your first album GAN, so I understand you). Seriously guys, I wanna see Looking 4 Myself being GA and you friends! — Tomíca(T2ME) 18:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- You're right Tomica, guess I should have been a bit more co-operative and patient. I'm sorry Nathan (if you're reading this) for letting my anger get the better of me, and for making rude remarks. Et3rnal 18:55, 24 December 2012 (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.