Talk:This Side of the Moon/GA1

Latest comment: 4 years ago by Aoba47 in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: K. Peake (talk · contribs) 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply


Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

I will review this soon, haven't done one of your articles for a while! --K. Peake 16:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Infobox and lead

edit
  • Remove venue parameter as that is for live recordings
  • the Sound Emporium → The Sound Emporium in the infobox
  • "in August 2004 through the Hog Country Production record label, and" → "in August 2004, through Hog Country Production, and"
  • "Cook recorded This Side of the Moon after leaving" → "Cook started recording after she left"
  • "With her follow-up album, she discussed her" → "For the album's successor, she was inspired by her"
  • "on love and heartbreak." → "that discuss love and heartbreak."
  • "were written and recorded independently," the highlighted part does not appear to be true after reading the body that talks about co-writers
  • "to other country artists," → "on the album to the vocals of other country artists,"
  • Revised with something different. I do not think "on the album" is necessary as a reader can already know this from context, and I avoid repeating "vocals" twice in the same sentence. Aoba47 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "promoted the album with" → "promoted This Side of the Moon with"
  • "generally positive from critics," → "generally positive from music critics," with the target
  • "Despite this critical acclaim, This Side of the Moon did" → "Despite gathering critical acclaim, it did"

Background and recording

edit
  • "which were later grouped together on" → "that were later grouped together for" on the img main text
  • You are incorrect. For album articles, the primary artist does need to be fully named and linked on their first mention in the body of the article. The lead and the body of the article are treated separately and items are linked in both (including the primary artist). I am not sure where you got your impression from, but it is not correct. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Add release year of Hey Y'all in brackets
  • Revised slightly. I added the release it was released later in the sentence Aoba47 (talk)
  • "they transferred Cook's contract to the parent company" → "the company transferred Cook's contract to its parent company,"
  • "for other options" → "for a different record label"
  • "following her Warner Bros. deal." → "after her deal with Warner Bros. ended."
  • "director Steve Fishell handled" → "director Steve Fishell, handled"
  • "recorded in eight" → "recorded at eight"
  • "Jeff Gordon is the album's" → "Jeff Gordon served as This Side of the Moon's"
  • "with producing most of This Side of the Moon," → "with producing most of the album,"
  • "departure from Warner Bros." → "departure from Warner Bros.,"
  • ""period of..." where is this quote backed up?
  • "and joked it was" → "and Cook joked it was"
  • "said this changed" → "said this responsibility changed"
  • Used "feeling" instead as it was more about Cook's emotions than an actual responsibility. That and I did not want to repeat responsibility twice in such a close proximity. Aoba47 (talk) 18:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "which she said allowed her" → "saying that the album allowed her"
  • "on the album's thirteen" → "on all of This Side of the Moon's thirteen"
  • "with songwriter Hardie McGehee[8]" → "with songwriter Hardie McGehee,[8]"
  • "had collaborated on" → "had previously collaborated on"
  • "two songs ("Ruthless" and "Heather Are You With Me Tonight") by" → "the two songs "Ruthless" and "Heather Are You With Me Tonight" by"

Composition and lyrics

edit
  • The sub-sections are useless, since it is titled Composition and lyrics but keep the paras as they currently are
  • I disagree. I found the subsections helpful and would prefer to keep them. I used a similar structure for Hey Y'all and I've seen other articles use this. I prefer to give this section some sense of structure rather than having it be a wall of text. Aoba47 (talk) 18:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Elizabeth Cook's voice to that of" → "Cook's voice to the one of"
  • Remove wikilink on Country Standard Time
  • "described its style" → "described its style as"
  • "said the songs had" → "said the songs have"
  • Target to Retro style should only be on the word retro
  • "the songs had different styles, from" → "the songs have various different styles, ranging from"
  • "vocals to those of" → "vocals on The Side of the Moon to those of"
  • "Grant Alden described Cook as" → "Alden described Cook as"
  • I prefer to use the critic's full name on their fist mention in a new section even though they were already introduced in a previous section. I just think using the last name only may be unnecessarily confusing to a reader, but that is just my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • For this and the other points where you have not changed the name references, isn't it pointless to re-use full names when they are the only ones with the surnames mentioned in the article; plus it is discouraged on Wiki for repeated full names refs for real names of people --K. Peake 07:48, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "saying it was" → "saying her voice is"
  • "as moments where" → "as moments on the album where"
  • "said Cook lacked a" → "said Cook doesn't have a"
  • "unlike other singers' approach" → "unlike other singers' approaches"
  • "Throughout the album, the lyrics" → "Throughout This Side of the Moon, the lyrics"
  • "warns her partner in" → "warns Carroll on"
  • "about the work" → "about the hard work"
  • "The album's final track "Somebody's Gotta Do It" is" → "The album's final track, "Somebody's Gotta Do It", is"
  • "thoughts about his" → "thoughts of his"
  • "over carrying out an airstrike ("Ain't it" → "over killing from a plane, "Ain't it" and delete the brackets in this edit
  • "and his hope that his girlfriend will" → "The soldiers' hope that his girlfriend will" as a new sentence
  • "and be faithful ("If I’m" → "→ "and be faithful is shown with the lyrics, "If I'm" and delete the brackets
  • "emphasized that it was a" → "emphasized that it is a"
  • "Comparing the lyrics to" → "Comparing the song's lyrics to those of"
  • "Warner Bros., specifically with" → "Warner Bros., specifically on"
  • "to cope with her feelings of" → "to handle her feelings of"
  • [4] does not back up that sentence?

Release and promotion

edit
  • "described it as an independent release." → "described the release as independent."
  • "available nationally on May 17, 2005" → "available on May 17, 2005" since no sources state what countries the release was in or call it national
  • I moved a citation here to support the "national" part, but since it does not explicitly specify the country (though it is most likely the US), I put that the record label gave the album a larger release. Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • [25] should be removed since it is not needed
  • "Prior to the album's release," → "Prior to release,"
  • "She also promoted" → "Cook also promoted"
  • "at international" → "by performing at international"
  • Remove the streaming sentence since that is not backed up
  • "when it changed" → "when the company changed"
  • "to it and felt comfortable" → "to it, and felt comfortable"
  • "perform in shows." → "perform at live shows."
  • "who were frustrated" → "that she thought were frustrated"
  • Good catch with this as it is important to not present this in Wikipedia's voice and emphasize that this is Cook's opinion and not from the fans themselves (or anyone else in general). Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Critical reception

edit
  • Change the img main text to mentioning what specifically was praised about Cook/her vocie
  • "received positive reviews from critics." → "was met with generally positive reviews from music critics."
  • "Kelefa Sanneh described the album as" → "Sanneh described it as"
  • "Stephen Thompson felt the album was" → "Thompson felt the album was"
  • "Nick Cristiano thought" → "Cristiano thought"
  • "Rick Bell commended Cook for" → "Bell commended Cook's performance on the album for"
  • "Grant Alden praised the album's cohesion as well as" → "Alden praised the album's cohesion, as well as"
  • "dismissing the notion Cook" → "dismissing the notion that Cook"
  • "Peter Cooper singled out" → "Cooper singled out"
  • "her fifth studio album Welder," → "her fifth studio album Welder from the same year,"
  • Revised slightly. I moved the release date after the album title instead of using "from the same year". After reading your note, I agree that it is important to specify the year, because it is not made clear from the year the review was published because there are plenty of reviews published years after an album was released. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "Alice Randall and Carter and" → "Randall, and Carter and"
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I just have a preference for using the critics' full names when I first re-introduce them in a new section. It is probably dumb, but I just find it more helpful for a reader. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • "while praising Cook for" → "when praising Cook for"
  • "Retrospective reviews" → "Retrospective reviews of This Side of the Moon"
  • "a critic for" → "a contributor for"
  • "a NPR writer said" → "an NPR writer said"
  • "identified it as an" → "identified the album as an"
  • "helped to establish Cook" → "to helping establish Cook"

Track listing

edit
  • I do not see a reason to include the headline since it would just be repeating the same information and citation already provided in the sentence about the track listing. I have never used the headline, and I have had articles like All Money Is Legal get promoted to a FA. It's just two different ways of doing it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • It is literally required because of the MOS rule; however, this was not set for music articles back when that article passed for FA so I understand your confusion and have made this fix for you. --K. Peake 19:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Comma should not be used for separation

Credits and personnel

edit
  • Retitle to Personnel
  • were adapted from the booklet → are adapted from the booklet

References

edit

Footnotes

edit
  • Copyvio score is relatively high at 45.1%, but this is fine since it is the personnel

Citations

edit
  • Make sure all of these are archived by using the tool
  • Even these do not have numbers next to them, I will identify them by citation numbers in the order that they are in below
  • WP:OVERLINK of No Depression on citation 2
  • WP:OVERLINK of Country Standard Time on citation 5
  • WP:OVERLINK of The Tennessean on citations 7, 8, 9, 25 and 26
  • Wikilink Newspapers.com on citation 7 per MOS:LINK2SECT
  • WP:OVERLINK of Newspapers.com on citations 8, 9, 10, 25, 26 and 31
  • WP:OVERLINK of AllMusic on citations 17 and 22
  • WP:OVERLINK of CMT on citation 27
  • WP:OVERLINK of Elizabeth Cook on citation 28
  • WP:OVERLINK of Billboard on citation 32
  • I prefer to link the website/publisher for each individual citation because I treat them individually. I have seen two different approaches to this. I have seen editors that only link the first instance, and others that link for every instance like myself. It just boils down to personal preference. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Final comments and verdict

edit
  • @Kyle Peake: Thank you for picking this up for a review. I honestly did not expect it to be reviewed so quickly as this album (and artist) are rather obscure. I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I have two quick clarification questions, and apologies again for not understanding them as I am sure they are already clear. I hope that I do not come across as rude in any of my response as I genuinely appreciate your help. I hope you are having a good week, and let me know if you need any help with your Wikipedia projects. Aoba47 (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Kyle Peake: I have responded to your points above. I have changed the part about the critics' names because it is not a major point to me, but I still disagree with a few of your comments. As I have already stated above, Cook does need to be fully mentioned and linked on the first mention in the body of the article, and your statement about that is just not true. Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • @Aoba47: Thank you for being fully professional in your response; I understand your reasoning for not implementing some changes and will keep them unchanged.  Pass for this article now though, after some brief copy editing by me and you are a pleasure to work with! --K. Peake 19:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Thank you for your professionalism as well. It is always a pleasure to work with you, and you have helped to improve the article immensely. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)Reply