Talk:So Beautiful or So What/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Retrohead (talk · contribs) 18:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll review this as part of the GA cup.--Retrohead (talk) 18:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• Can we stick to more formal language, and replace "No. 4" with number four?

Done. Dan56 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Release and reception

• Same as the lead, numbers lower than 12 are written with letters.
• Is it better to put the Metacritic score in the table, for better navigation?
• Why the blogger than thought the album was religious is included here?

It's of more service to readers if the prose expounds a little on Metacritic's score rather than presenting the score with no context in the ratings template, IMO. The Irish blogger is one example cited in the source of reviewers taking note of Simon's overt religious symbolism. I've added another. Dan56 (talk) 01:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• By "fleshing them out" you mean developing the songs?
• Can you describe Jay Z as rapper, instead of mogul?

Fixed. Dan56 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Other

• There's minor inconsistency with the reference formatting. At certain places you've used the "author" parameter, and on others you've used "first" and "last".
• Image/audio files are properly licensed.
• Can you implement other parameters in the "Release history" such as formats, edition, etc? Check Anti's release history for an idea.

Corrected references. And tbh I don't know if how useful that would be. References for at least some of those countries would be limited to just the date and one format, which in this decade is almost always CD/download lol. Only one edition of this album. Dan56 (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be noted. Simon's career is decades long and I thought he was still releasing albums on vinyl and cassette for nostalgia sake. Also, it could be noted if there was a deluxe CD edition in addition if having a standard.

But unless the release dates or record labels are different, I don't see how it's necessary; most of it can be assumed by readers, and I always felt the easily available information would be about countries where the record received most coverage in sources (in this case, the US and to some degree the UK). Some of the sources cited for many of the other country's release dates don't include information beyond the date, so the table would end up with missing info in some parameters. Discogs, albeit user-submitted, shows a similar consistency ([1]). Either way, I don't see how any of this would be of much interest for the general English-speaking reader. Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• You haven't included the UK and US positions in the chart section.

I did, American and British. Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I usually look at the bottom of the table for those because they are written as "US Billboard 200" and "UK Albums Chart". Since that's cleared out, I'm passing this article.--Retrohead (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)