Talk:Loud (Rihanna album)/GA3

GA Review

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

Reviewer: (CA)Giacobbe (talk · contribs) 10:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey guys! I'm (CA)Giacobbe and I'll be doing the review! Calvin and Tomica have always been more than eager to help me out when I need it, so I figured its time I returned the favour! (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 18:56, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Aaron • ^{You Da One} 19:06, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much :) ! — Tomica (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Review Start

Okay everybody, I'll begin the review process now! Normally my reviews don't take that long to do, it may only take a day or two depending on the quality of the article, I don't like to keep people waiting!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Step 1: General overview

1. Dashboard: Major contributors have been advised on their respective talk pages about the review process.
   
2. Disambiguation links: The article is clean of disambiguation links.
   
3. References: References are good, properly sourced, no dead or suspicious.
   
4. Major issues: Major issues are not present.
   
5. Original research: Issues regarding high amounts of original research do not exist.
   
6. Lead section: Minor issues, adressed below
   
7. Article structure: All sections mandatory for a song article are weel positioned and detailed.

Step 2: A lot more in depth

Note: This is the largest part of the review, I will go through each individual section and point out issues, after the issues are fixed, I will go through it again in Part 3 to see if I missed anything!

1. Lead: Some issues with the layout per say. Normally I like to divide a lead into 3 parts; the first part being "Album name/ release date/ label/ producers/ writers/ and any additional guest vocalists" and the second being "Composition: (ex. what the album is rooted in, than what other genres does it heavily rely on) and a quick list of the singles that were released." and finally the third section "Critical reception: the first line of this section should indicate either negative, mixed, positive, or acclaimed (and anything in-between) followed by something positive a majority of critics said, and then something negative which they said (ex. The album recieved mainly positive reviews, with the majority complimenting the lyrical value, while some denounced the productions)".

Your article mainly follows this, but could you try to blend in the composition paragraph with the singles section, and then summarize it? The lead shouldn't give all the info away, intrigue the reader into the article from the lead, but make it so it acts as a teaser, making he/she want to read more of the article! Thanks :)

If I (we) merge critical reception with singles what would happen with the chart performance? There will not be place in the lead for it and I think its really important. — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

What LOL? Critical reception stays the same! I'm taking about merging the paragraph about what genres it uses, and merge that with the singles paragraph! Chart performance and critical reception is big enough to stay on its own. (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The lead stays as four paragraphs. There's nothing wrong with that. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 14:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I also think 4 paragraphs is fine. The model we used for Loud was The Emancipation of Mimi. 4 paragraphs as well. — Tomica (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Development: The first sentence kind of threw me off here, I thought he was talking about "LOUD" having a darker sound! Could you re-word that to give the reader an idea that he was talking about Rated R? An example would be something like "During the recording sessions for Rihanna's fifth studio album, Rated R, long-time collaborator and producer Neyo said in an interview that..."?

• Re-worded. — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Recording: In the 11th line down in the recording section, it mentions that the Drake and Rihanna collaboration was originally meant to be a remix, but later it was chosen to be the official album version, in light of that, would you mind chaning the sentence from "The collaboration was originally planned to be the remix, but later it was decided to use the original version" → "The collaboration was originally planned to be the remix, but later it was decided that the version featuring Drake would be used as the original"?

• Re-worded also. — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Songs and lyrics: Okay here's where things start to get a little messy. Several issues here but all generally the same thing, see section below for a full list of things that need to be changed :)

• Issue 1 (Citations): Citations can be grouped together to make the article appear less blotchy. So it be really great if you could go through this section and if you see any refs beside quotation marks that isn't supporting a fully quoted sentence, move it to the nearest period? But make sure that there are only three refs at the end of the period. If there are more than that, than move three to the end of the period, and then put the remaining sources at the end of the closest comma to the period? Thank you!

  I think Tomcia has done this by the looks of it. Aaron • ^{You Da One}

• Issue 2 (Quotes from reviewers): Quotes are generally okay in the composition section, but only use them when describing the actual compisition, not the actual review of the song itself. If you can, try not to include them but rather take info from what they've said, like specific words which can be in a quotation marks, instead of full on sentences.

• Re-worded most of them. However, I have a problem with the one regarding "Complicated". — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Issue 3 (Grammar and sentence structure): Minor grammar, could you switch this sentences to the ones I've provided?

1. S&M: "Andy Kellman of Allmusic regarded "S&M" as a dance-pop songs for efficiently balancing "Rihanna's playful and sinister sides"." → "Andy Kellman of Allmusic regarded "S&M" as a dance-pop song which efficiently balanced "Rihanna's playful and sinister sides"."

•  Done — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Whats My Name: "It is a mid-tempo, electro-R&B song, and sees Rihanna's return to the "Island-pop" style of her early career; the backing track consists of heavy reggae" → "It is a mid-tempo, electro-R&B song with a back track consisting of heavy reggae. The song also see's Rihanna's return to the "Island-pop" style of her early career". Also, would you mind removing the billboard remark, it doesn't really make much sense to add it to the composition, rather on the "critical reception" section on it's own page?

•  Done — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Cheers (Drink to That): "Cheers (Drink to That)" was produced by hip hop production team The Runners. Mark Savage from BBC News described the song as a funky, loping guitar groove for a night out on the town. Rihanna dedicated the song to "all the semi-alcoholics in the world". "Cheers (Drink to That)" samples Avril Lavigne's "I'm with You"." → "Cheers (Drink to That)" is a pop rock song produced by hip hop production team The Runners, and samples Avril Lavigne's "I'm with You". Mark Savage from BBC News described the song as a funky, loping guitar groove for a night out on the town. Rihanna has said the the song is dedicated to "all the semi-alcoholics in the world"."

•  Done Also changed sample with interpolates. — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. California King Bed: ""California King Bed" is a rock ballad, while "Man Down" incorporates a heavy reggae composition. Ryan Dombell from Pitchfork Media commented that "California King Bed" is a "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" type power ballad genetically engineered to soundtrack a bi-coastal Kate Hudson rom-com." Jon Pareless of "New York Times" commented that in "Man Down", Rihanna plays up her West Indian accent in the electro-reggae rhythm song about shooting a man in Central Station. "California King Bed" and "Cheers (Drink to That)" were produced by The Runners, while "Man Down" was produced by Shama Joseph" → ""California King Bed" is a rock power ballad which has been compared by Ryan Dombell of Pitchfork Media to the Aerosmith song, "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing"." Make sure to seperate the two :)
2. Man Down: ""California King Bed" is a rock ballad, while "Man Down" incorporates a heavy reggae composition. Ryan Dombell from Pitchfork Media commented that "California King Bed" is a "I Don't Want to Miss a Thing" type power ballad genetically engineered to soundtrack a bi-coastal Kate Hudson rom-com." Jon Pareless of "New York Times" commented that in "Man Down", Rihanna plays up her West Indian accent in the electro-reggae rhythm song about shooting a man in Central Station. "California King Bed" and "Cheers (Drink to That)" were produced by The Runners, while "Man Down" was produced by Shama Joseph" → ""Man Down" is a reggae song with an electro-reggae rhythm, in which Rihanna sings in a West Indian accent."

• Separated and c/e. — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Raining Men: ""Raining Men" features rap vocals from Trinidadian rapper Nicki Minaj. Rihanna described the song as "a really fun song. Nothing like the original. It's quite uptempo but kind of quirky and funny." However, Allmusic described the R&B-Dancehall song as a low point on the album, adding that it sounds unfinished." → "Raining Men" is a R&B and dancehall song, which features rap vocals from Trinidadian rapper Nicki Minaj. Rihanna described the song as "a really fun song. Nothing like the original. It's quite uptempo but kind of quirky and funny."

• C/e with some modifications. — Tomica (talk) 13:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay Calvin and Tomica! These are the only main issues with the article that I see, just be sure to work on the citations and then check them all off when you finished. Good work guys :) (CA)Giacobbe (talk) 23:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Step 3: Check to see if issues have been resolved and any errors missed

• Note: In the lead at the very last sentence there is a citation, that is the only thing holding me back from rendering the verdict.--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  Moved it to the Critical reception section. Aaron • ^{You Da One} 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Step 4: Final Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Overall it was very well written and interesting article to read, and I'm glad that both of you are finally getting the GA you worked so hard on. Keep up the awesome work guys :)!--(CA)Giacobbe (talk) 16:17, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

• Wow thanks. Can't believe it has finally been reviewed! :) Aaron • ^{You Da One} 16:18, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

  oooo God finally :D !— Tomica (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)