Talk:Sheryl Crow (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this article over the next few days. I've just had a quick look through so far, and the article looks great. Couple of minor issues with prose, but overall this is already pretty much there. I'll post detailed suggestions here over the next few days. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. No rush :) --Niwi3 (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

Very well written. Covers everything that is mentioned/sourced within the article.

Background and recording

There are a few issues with the second paragraph here. I don't like the use of the word "Inevitably", because it isn't explained elsewhere on the article - and I doubt you'd ever find a source for this - about why it was "inevitable" that tensions were sure to arise with the other members of Tuesday Music Club. Plus, there are some issues with sentence-run-on, and it would improve readability to link to John O'Brien (novelist) and his book Leaving Las Vegas (novel).

Consider changing that entire paragraph to something like this:

“ Tensions between Crow and other members of the group began to arise following Crow's performance of "Leaving Las Vegas" on the Late Show with David Letterman in March 1994. Crow offhandedly agreed with the host when she was asked if the track was autobiographical, even though it was primarily written by Baerwald and based on the book of the same name by his friend John O'Brien. As a result, several members of the Tuesday Music Club group felt betrayed, and O'Brien himself committed suicide three weeks later. Nevertheless, O'Brien's parents insisted that Crow had nothing to do with the tragedy, noting that he "was just mad about it [...] But the problems that drove him toward the end were – you know, that's a long, long bloody trip." ”

Third paragraph: Consider changing

“ Although most of the album was recorded at Kingsway Studio in New Orleans, Crow returned to California where she could finish it at The Sound Factory and Sunset Sound in Los Angeles. ”

to something like

“ Most of the album was recorded at Kingsway Studio in New Orleans, although Crow would later return to Los Angeles to complete work at The Sound Factory and Sunset Sound. ”

Nothing major and certainly not necessary, but it's a simple change that improves readability to the whole paragraph.

Music and lyrics

Third paragraph:

“ Unlike other songs from the album, "If It Makes You Happy" has a simple verse–chorus form ”

The cited source, Slant, states that the "structure" of IIMYH "is fairly straightforward", but that's about it. It doesn't go on to state that other songs found on the album employ some sort of complex song structures. I'd change that to "The album's lead single, "If It Makes You Happy", underwent several different arrangements before being turned into a rock song." Also,

“ Trott initially wrote the song when he was in Pete Droge's band, ”

I'd change that to

“ Trott initially wrote the song when he was a member of Pete Droge's backing band, ”

Just to avoid confusion with Pete Droge and The Sinners. Trott was never a member of The Sinners, just the band he toured with for his first album.

Release

Small issue with the sales referenced on the second paragraph from ref 1 (Rolling Stone - "Sheryl Crow: She Only Wants to Be With You".) The cited figure refers to the first-two-week album/single performance in the US. It'd be better if you mentioned both sales figures separately, i.e., change

“ The album reached No. 6 on the US Billboard Top 200 chart and, as of January 2008, sold 2.4 million units in the U.S. according to Nielsen SoundScan, being certified 3× platinum by the RIAA. ”

→:

“ The album reached No. 6 on the US Billboard 200 chart and sold 143,000 copies in the first two weeks of release. As of January 2008, the album had sold 2.4 million units in the U.S. according to Nielsen SoundScan and has been certified 3× platinum by the RIAA. ”

Also,

“ In Europe, it was certified 1× platinum by the IFPI. ”

I don't think we need the 1× there, do we? Just 'platinum' would suffice.

Second paragraph:

“ In the first two weeks of release, 82,000 units of the single and 143,000 copies of the album were sold. ”

Remove that sentence entirely and append the note about 82,000 units of the single to the sentence about US chart performance of the single.

Critical reception

No problems here, except for a minor quotation mark error, which I've fixed here.

Track listing

We should include the region-specific editions here, like

• UK edition (with "Free Man") source
• International edition (with "Sad Sad World" and "Hard to Make A Stand (alt version)" source
• Japan edition (with "Sad Sad World" + "Free Man") source
• + the previously sourced "Signature tour edition"

I added the UK edition and "Signature tour edition" bonus tracks. However, is it really necessary to include the track listing of the Japanese and German editions? I mean, this is an article about an American album on the English Wikipedia; we also don't include Japanese and German release dates in the infobox. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Personally I like to include every deluxe edition which has a unique track listing, but no, it's certainly not necessary. And with the changes we've made, the track listing section is comprehensive enough. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Charts and certifications

In the certifications section, per the points I laid out in the Release section, remove the "|number=1" from both the Switzerland and Europe tables.

Formalities

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):

   See comments above Y Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Fantastically sourced. Everything mentioned in the article is found within every reference source. And the fact that every single ref has been archived is a massive +

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: (pending comments above in point #1 being addressed) Y Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You did a great job here. Well done. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your outstanding review, really appreciated. I left a comment regarding the addition of the Japanese and German edition bonus tracks. Please, see above and let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:09, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Well done on all your work, and congratulations @Niwi3:. Sheryl Crow (album) is now a Good Article. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)