Wikipedia

Talk:Loud (Rihanna album)/GA1

< Talk:Loud (Rihanna album)
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Ktlynch in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 13 years ago76 comments7 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

References

edit
  • Starting Alright guys, we are going to be starting with the references. I'm going to list a number of issues, and examples of how they are to be fixed.
  • (For the "works" parameter. Nothing aside from printed sources (newspapers, magazines etc.) should come out in italics. Hence Ref #1 & #2 are wrong. Similarly, ref #4 is a printed source, because its a magazine, so it should be Vibe, not Vibe (magazine).
  • Ref #3 needs fixing
  • Ref #10 - Rap-Up is an online magazine, just like Slant Magazine and Stylus Magazine, so you don't italicize it. Its a simple thought process, you'll get used to it after encountering the same sources often :). If there are sources you aren't sure of, look at The Emancipation of Mimi, as it has over 230 references and a variety of printed and online sources. ust control+F and search if the article has the same magazine or source and copy the format :)
  •   Doing.... Yeah I know, it wasn't me who wrote the Background and recording section, and I didn't check the references. Some Rap Up ones might still need to be addressed. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!
  • Also, don't overlink things in the references. Link it the first time you mention it, not like with #5 and #9
  • When titles appear as all capitals, like #11, you write it out normally, not like that. You capitalize every regular word, other than a, and, etc.
  • Know the difference between the Cite web and Cite news templates. Cite news is for all printed newspapers AKA LA Times, NY Times etc.
  • Reference #16 should be cite web, not news
  • The Allmusic sources are poorly formatted. The work is Allmusic and the publisher is Rovi Corporation. Also, you have it as Cite news for some reason.
  • Then, a lot of sources are either not formatted or done really poorly, AKA #s 36, 41, 70, 78, 79, 119, 120, 132 etc.
  • 240, 241 - why are they RIANZ. Spell it out
  • Lastly, a lot of sources are questionable in terms of respectability. Simply, what makes #s 83, 88, 89, 155, 163, 227, 259, 260 etc.
  • Changed reference no. 155, will do the others later ... #83, I can not find other source about Loud sales in the UK. Probably I have to remove it? ... I can also not find sources for #88 and #89, about when "Only Girl (In the World)" impacted the US radios. Also as I said source #155 is changed. Changed source #163, with two sources from Rap-Up. Removed the source #227, about year end on the German charts. While the sources for NZ certifications. What's the problem with that cite? They are used in Rihanna discograpy. However, I changed the source certification for "S&M" and "Only Girl (In the World)" with a searchable dates from the database, however I can not find a date when "What's My Name?" was on the charts and was certified Platinum. The last time that was on the charts is 7 February, 2011, but then was certified just gold :S. Comments?   Doing... Tomica1111 (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Read here about UK sales - It turns out the usage of Ref #83 is okay. It was poorly referenced so I didn't see the publisher or anything. You wrote Ozap, but PureMédias is the publisher, a French news wevbsite. This one is fine. See, thats why sources have to be well formatted ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • If you can't find alternate sources for the deemed unreliable ones then they will have to be removed, including the prose. Btw, I'm disputing the removal of PopCrush, because it has been used in Cheers and was deemed reliable. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 14:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I would go through each reference. Maybe you guys can split them. After this (these are found in almost every reference) then we can move on to prose and other things. Good Luck! I have this page watch-listed, so comment here for queries or concerns! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • I have done most of them, but's 2:40am and I want to be sleeping in my bed instead of typing in my bed now! haha. I have literally only addressed the reference numbers given here Tomica, so there are probably still Rap Up and MTV etc. references to fix throughout the article. Obviously I will continue tomorrow. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 01:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Don't worry about time - I'm very patient guys. I know this is a long article, so if a week isn't enough (it probably won't be) then don't sweat it. As long as there is progress, I wouldn't oppose for a 2-3 week nomination. So really, don't kill yourself! :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 03:02, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Read here about UK sales - It turns out the usage of Ref #83 is okay. It was poorly referenced so I didn't see the publisher or anything. You wrote Ozap, but PureMédias is the publisher, a French news wevbsite. This one is fine. See, thats why sources have to be well formatted ;)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Regarding RadioScope. We usually only use official certifying agencies for certifications, in this case the RIANZ. Try finding the certifications there, I'm sure you can. If you need help, as a fellow Zealander User:Adabow, I'm sure he can help you navigate it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • RadioScope is the only place to find all certs from mid 2007 in NZ. RIANZ only lists the certs if the song/album is on the charts the same week. RadioScope collects the sales data and forwards it to RIANZ,[1] so it is reliable. —Andrewstalk 22:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

References 2

edit
  • Round Two Sources - Still a lot of work Calvin.
    • Inconsistency in dates
I do have a set formula I use, but obviously people are still allowed to edit this article and they have different ways of formatting. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I understand, I had that issue as well, but you'll find that once the are all perfect, you'll effectively be able to monitor small changes and either fix them or revert.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done ... I re-formatted all references from 177 until the end. Nathan you should check them, and let us continue with the review. THIS REFS are so BORING :( ! Tomica1111 (talk) 11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I understand the bore of it Tommy, and I will, but you guys still have not completely fixed them. There are so many inconsistencies. In 221 and 222, Billboard does not appear in italics. Why does 35 use "Cite News"? #45 is still not fixed. 49 and 50 are wrong. Tommy, I suggest you and Calvin split the references, and do them right! Instead of doing some each, and getting confused and over-looking many of them, you do 1-135 and he do the rest.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Deal, I will do it until 135. Tomica1111 (talk) 13:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Honestly Tommy, if there are ones that you don't know, I'll do them. List me the ones when your done, or I'll try and tighten them after you've finished :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 13:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sure Nath, if there are some "unknown to me" , I will tell when I'm done ;) ! Tomica1111 (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
So Tomica, you have done references 177 to the end, and are doing 1-135? If so, I will do 136-176 if you want. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, you can do them. Also you can check from 177 till the end, as maybe there is some mistakes. Tomica1111 (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

I reworked all the references from 1 - 135. I only found trouble with the HipHopDX publisher. There are two - Cheri Media Group & Complex Media Network and I don't know which is the real. Do you know Nath? Tomica1111 (talk) 11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I re-formatted all the references, and I'm at least 90% sure, that they are fine. You can check them Nath, and I hope we will continue the review. Greetings Tomica1111 (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Tomica I've had a lot on my mind. Where are you up to re-formatting? I'll do the rest. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 12:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
No problem Calv, I have done for you :). I'm done. Now we just wait for Nathan to continue with the review. Tomica1111 (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay thanks. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Guys, you are making this really difficult. There are loads of inconsistencies with the references. Some are still with Cite web or News when it should be the opposite. Some are linked several times (we link first time only). Some are un-reliable sources (Pop Crush, Sohh!?). Before we get to anything else, and I'm sure this will annoy the hell out of you, I need good references. You're at about 75% of the way now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'll sort them out Nathan. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC) But i will probs do it tomorrow because i am seriously hungover at the moment! Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon!Reply
Haha "The Hangover Part III". Don't worry I know that feeling ! :) Tomica1111 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Haha, and I'm high at the moment :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, you guys are getting there. Things to point out. There are inconsistencies with dates (2011-08-19; August 19, 2011). Choose one and stick to it. Why are the publishers in 1 and 2 in parenthesis? Why is 4? Why is 30? 31? 36 should be (ts a newspaper!!!!!!). #45 is still wrong publisher (I told you its Tribune Company) and should be in parenthesis. I'm going to fix the 15 that are wrong. Pay attention please :P--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
I know how to reference them and have a particular style of formatting I stick to, I just can't see which ones need changing. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Round two

edit

Lead

edit
  • The lead needs some work, here are my main concerns:
  • I think you should switch content from the first and second. Try and keep each paragraph focused. One will discuss background and who was involved with the project, while the second on its musical styles, genre choices etc.
  • Be careful with mixing tenses: "Loud focused more on up-tempo and pop related genres, ranging from dance-pop to Electro-R&B, and marks her return to her dancehall roots" -> focused, marks
  • The third paragraph needs to not focus just on the US and UK. Try and seem less biased and shimmy it down and add info for other countries as well
  • "Upon its release, Loud received positive reviews from most music critics, who complimented its upbeat material and Rihanna's performance." -> this sentence doesn't fly. We need like two solid sentences of actual commentary on why the album was praised (maybe strong infusion of several musical styles and Rihanna's improving vocals) while criticism for etc.
  • The last sentence is far to long and repetitious. Mention the first three singles regarding their chart performance, then go into the tour. Don't list chart position for seven singles
  • You mentioned she earned 10 #1s faster than Mariah Carey. This is not found in the body of the article
    Done all Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Okay. Nice switch for the first two paragraphs. he third paragraph is way too detailed. You don't need to give us quotations on critical analysis, write it in your own words, but not vague things like "Rihanna's performance"
  • Loud was a commercial success internationally -> this is puffery. We let the sources and facts do the talking. The album achieved high peaks on charts in etc is fine
  • That Grammy fact is kind of just thrown out there. Is that the only Grammy? Only major award? I suggest (depending on what it won, I'm not really sure) a sentence that it won several awards throughout the music industry, or not to mention it at all
  • The last bit "less successful in" is just trivial and extra--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Media

edit
  • You don't have great descriptions for the samples. A line regarding its lyrics does not tell me why the sample should stay. I take it you no what I mean
  • I think the samples are misplaced. One of them would be better by a section that actually discusses the song's lyrics and composition
    Done all Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Content

edit
  • The "singles" section still needs trimming. Its very bulky and hard to navigate
  • You don't have to have random facts regarding the music video just thrown into the mix. Note that on TEOM, only the first two are mentioned because they are two parts of one video. the rest are not mentioned. Try maybe discussing the video for "S&M" and "Man Down" due to their controversy and remove the random facts of the directors for the others
  • Be careful with "some noted" and having only one critic referenced
  • There you go for now.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
    I've removed all instances of talking about a Music video. But considering there was not prose about the S&M and Man Down vids with regard to controversy, I think that if I talk about them, then it would kinda undo the shortening I just did by removing the Music video lines from the other singles, so I'm just going to leave them all clear of any Music video prose. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • You missed a few above for the lead - now, there are a lot of unnecessary facts regarding the live performance sections. Additionally, the singles still needs trimming. Before we get to a major c/e, you need to crop a lot of unneeded info. All the descriptions on Rhanna's wardrobe etc should be removed; they are kept for their respective song articles. And the singles section still needs to be cropped by like 30%. Look at the work I did on Mimi for the FAC so far, there is really a lot of unnecessary information here.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Comments

edit

Ref 31, 56 and 128 are the same. And why isn't "Skin" (the best song) mentioned anywhere in the article? Surely some reviewer must have mentioned something about its instrumentation or what it's about? Pancake (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Your ref comments are fine, but just because that song is your favorite does not mean its mention is required. It has almost no coverage.--18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you seriously think I wanted it to be included just because it's my favorite? lol That was not the point. Pancake (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Nathan. That is how it read. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if it came out that way. I was just observing. I actually wanted to read what critics said of the song, but I couldn't fin anything on the page, so I had to ask. Pancake (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've read a lot of Loud reviews (as part of promoting Only Girl, S&M, Raining Men, Man Down, California King Bed and LTWYL to GA) and I don't recall seeing much, if any, commentary about Skin or Fading. I think I saw one, which was very brief. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
As I said above. You missed a few points on the lead. Aaron, I recommend you take this article to the GOCE. There are really far to many prose issues to point out. I'll wait, but I suggest you submit now. The singles section still needs trimming. They have their own articles for a reason.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm very skeptical about using that because when I used it for S&M, the guy completely fucked up the article and made it impossible for it to be passed by FAC, I had to undo the vast majority of his work. Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've used them three times and they have helped me greatly. Put in the request and I'll ask if Diana could do yours; she's the best at it.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done Calvin • NaNaNaC'mon! 18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
  • Fail - I have waited a month for the clearly under-prepared article. This was delivered with references in shambles, and with poor prose and structure. After waiting this long, I have decided that I will not bend anymore for editors that are not deserving or appreciative of it. The article is still not GA-worthy, and I am not waiting any longer.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply


Comments from Ktlynch A few things:

1. There should not be a list of credits and production staff in the article. This is an encyclopaedia. 2. The writing is constipated. I feel the word count could be safely cut by one-third. 3. Some of the sources are definitely not WP:RS, I saw one from amazon!!! 4. There is good real world perspective and coverage of different facets of the disc. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Loud_(Rihanna_album)/GA1&oldid=1140126746"