Talk:Results May Vary/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Famous Hobo (talk · contribs) 23:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me just reserve this spot for now. I will review this soon. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Well college finals suck. Anyway, since I just finished my final paper for my English class and I have a bit of time before work, let's finish this review.

Lead

• Honestly, no real problems. The only nitpick I could find was in the second paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to mention in parenthesis that Spears denied the affair, since later in the sentence you mention how her denial may have contributed to the lyrical content.

Background, writing and recording

• Neither picture is useful for this section, as neither Welch or Snoop Dog are even mentioned in this section. I'd either remove the pictures or move them to a better place in the article.
• The first block quote is incorrect. Block quotes should only be used if the quote is four lines or longer, like the second block quote (although I do have some issues with that block quote). This one can be easily turned into a regular quote.
• The block quote in the title subsection is unnecessary. There's too much additional fluff from Durst that doesn't need to be mentioned. All you need to mention is what the title means (and maybe a bit on the album cover, since it's briefly mentioned). Also, you probably don't even need to quote him as you can say something along the lines of "According to Durst, the title Result May Vary is a reference to how each person will have a different reaction upon hearing the album's songs, like the ingredients of a prescription drug." Not the best and a bit of a run on sentence, but you get the point.

Music and lyrics

• It has been characterized as alternative rock,[21] nu metal[18][29] and rap rock.[18] This sentence is not needed, as you already mentioned the album's genres two sentences ago.
• Guitarist Wes Borland, who was replaced by Mike Smith of Snot, did not appear on the album.[5] Everything in this sentence has already been mentioned, so remove it.
• Rolling Stone reported that an inside source claimed that one of the songs that Durst recorded with Spears was a cover of the INXS song "Need You Tonight".[36] Why bother mention this random piece of trivia? I mean, in the context of their possible affair, I can understand why recording that song would be rather interesting, but it's rather pointless here.

Promotion, commercial performance and touring

• I dislike how the two pictures smush the text. I'd recommend removing one of the two.

Critical reception

• I have to say this: Good lord is the reception section big! Seriously it's huge. And the problem is, there's really no reason it needs to be. After reading it, I can tell that pretty much every review mentioned in the first paragraph thought that the album sucked, some more vocal about it than others. I really think this needs to be cut down. There are also some unnecessary tidbits, such as "In his book, The Essential Rock Discography, Martin Charles Strong gave Results May Vary four out of ten stars.[62] Both Rolling Stone[27] and The Rolling Stone Album Guide[60] gave the album three out of five stars." Why bother mentioning the scores if you don't elaborate on what the reviews disliked about it. I recommend cutting out a decent amount of the reviews that more or less say the same thing, and try to paraphrase when possible (unless it's a quote that's too good like "No, Fred, the results don't vary. The results are consistent throughout your new album—consistently crappy", that can stay if you'd like).

I will leave this to Statik N to call. The other issues have been addressed. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed a few things on the critical reception section. Many sections on Wikipedia are huge so I don't see what's wrong with the critical reception section being huge. Statik N (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: @Statik N: I have removed more than 2300 bytes of irrelevant parts to the critical reception. Is this good enough? It is larger in comparison to other articles I've done, but a lot of it's been removed. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Everything else until the references

• I'm just going to have to take your word for it on these sections, they all look standard.

References

• There's a bit of inconsistency with formatting of the references. For example, some have accessdates, some don't. Some have dates and authors, some don't (unless the source you used didn't include them, which is fine). Also, try to avoid leaving ref titles in all caps. I know it might be tedious, but try and go through the refs and remove all caps when you can (just capitalize the first letter of each word).

Alright, I good article, but I'm most concerned about the reception section. Once everything is taken care of, I'll promote the article. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The reason why some citations don't have dates, accessdates, and authors, is because I didn't know what date they were put on the article or the citation URL doesn't say anything about a date or the author. Statik N (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed the citation titles. Statik N (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Statik N, just put in accessdates for the current date. It doesn't matter when they were accessed, as long as they work currently. You don't need the date they were put on the article. I saw this method used to bring The 2nd Law to GA status. I'll do these eventually if I can just get access to a computer, every year my family puts away one of the computers for the holidays. We have three; one is put away, one is broken, and the other my brother uses for school projects. So in the meantime if Statik can fix 'em I'll be grateful. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 15:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Statik N (talk) 19:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Complete

Famous Hobo, I believe everything you've asked for has been completed, and then some (links have been checked for copyvio). dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 18:58, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Famous Hobo: Let's try this again. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 23:59, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Passing. As for the reception section, it does look better, but the reason I was initially worried was because it seemed too full of quotes talking about how they hated the album. We get it, Results May Vary was not well received at all, no need to constantly throw this in our face. It was also hard to read because sometimes too many quotes can break up the flow of the paragraph. But now it looks better. Still a little out of control in certain parts, but for GA status, it's good. However, if you do decide to do anything further with this article, I highly recommend cutting down even more. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2017 (UTC)