Talk:Stranger Fruit

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stranger Fruit/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kyle Peake (talk · contribs) 08:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Quick Fail

Sorry but this article is a long way away from being able to be passed, as the commercial performance, track listing and personnel sections all contain unreferenced information; this means it fails criteria 2. Plus the lead needs much exp. --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I disagree with your quick fail assessment; as all the info is sourced elsewhere in the the article (I have since updated most of the references; although I don't know how to make the album chart tables into references.) I expanded the lead a little bit as well. A proper review without an immediate fail for minor issues would be appreciated (I believe the article is nowhere close to one of the 4 immediate fail criteria)RF23 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Ringerfan23: You can't just block someone from quick failing. If you read the criteria it clearly fails broadness due to the lead being too short as well as commercial performance, since it's only two sentences and I know you mentioned all the countries but you should separate the info more as this is clearly possible. I have elaborated and renominate this once it's ready, plus you made those changes after I had reviewed the article... --Kyle Peake (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I know the lead can be expanded a bit; but I think it summarizes the main points pretty clearly. As stated, the information was sourced; just not properly referenced (it was properly referenced a section below). I'm not trying to "block you from quick failing", I'm simply saying I disagree with your decision (my initial revert of the talk page happened before I realized you reviewed it). Is there a way to quickly re-nominated an article or to formally disagree with a review, because I nominated it almost a year ago and I feel it was unjustly thrown out without any chance of feedback (normally the nominator gets a few days to respond to article issues and fix them before it's passed/failed).RF23 (talk) 08:58, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Post-close comment

Kyle Peake, RF23, I would like to suggest that, when articles have been waiting a very long time for a review, a quickfail should be avoided unless the article is clearly hopeless, which this one is not—the issues seem eminently fixable within the standard seven days. The lead was two paragraphs, pretty much the maximum number for an article with under 15K characters of prose (see MOS:LEADLENGTH), and leads have nothing to do with broadness at all (though it's perfectly valid to request additional sections of the article be covered in the lead, a normal request and usually an easy fix). In any event, leads must meet the criteria in MOS:LEAD, which a review should note and the nominator edit accordingly. Under the circumstances, I think the best thing is retain the seniority of the original nomination date while allowing a new reviewer to start a GA2 page when they select this article from the pool of over 500 nominations waiting for reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review 2

This review is transcluded from Talk:Stranger Fruit/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 00:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

• "It is Zeal & Ardor's first release as a full band, previous releases were entirely composed by singer Manuel Gagneux, although Stranger Fruit only features drummer Marco Von Allmen from the full band alongside Gagneux." this is confusing, which also sucks because it makes up about a third of the lead.
• Yeah, reading the next paragraph I'd suggest a re-write of the lead. It'd be nice if it were longer, but it's not distractingly short.
• Technically the quote in "Background" is long enough to be a blockquote, but it also contains a lot of very short words, making it a very short blockquote; could it just be incorporated into the preceding paragraph where the title is already mentioned.
• Speaking of, the "Background" reads like reading a list does. There's keeping statements neutral and factual but still having some style, and then there's taking simple statements and putting them next to each other.
• Is "Song Information" a standard section header, because it doesn't seem so. Not "Composition and artistry" or something seen in other album articles?
• You could have at least separated the songs into their own paragraphs, or connected them by theme rather than listing; it's just a lot of statements all bunched together, and doesn't read easily. It doesn't help that the voice and structure of sentences is conflicting, so info on one song will end before it feels like it should and then the reader has to go back and start re-reading everything to understand what song you're now talking about.
  • Also uses a lot of quotes without contextualizing them.
  • And there are certainly places where better words and phrasing could be used, for clarification and to abide with common and/or correct expression.
  • This section could also use a re-write.
• The Accolades table just bugs me. I feel the information could be presented in a better way. I'm sure I'll think of some suggestion later, and come back to this to add it.
• Fail - significantly wanting in terms of layout and prose

Coverage

• Is there no more info on the music videos? If the singles don't have articles, their music videos should be covered here.
• "The album is produced by Gagneux and Zebo Adam, mixed by Kurt Ballou, and mastered by Alan Douches." - don't need to state this with the full personnel listed below.
• Alternative album cover should be discussed in the album artwork section.
• ""Gravedigger's Chant" features the lyrics "Bring the dead down low, Bring the dead body down to the graveyard, son. You can't run, you can't hide.", alongside piano and gospel-style vocals." - since these lyrics are not discussed, do they need a random sentence thrown in there?
• ""The Hermit" is one of four instrumental tracks on the album (alongside "The Fool", "Solve" and "Coagula")" - any reason you've decided three songs are a side-note, despite having the same amount of info on them as the one that isn't?
• the Critical reception section is literally just a list of quotes of positive reviews.
• Commerical performance should either be expanded or ditched - the same content exists in a more reader-friendly fashion as the chart table.
• Fail - several things that I would consider necessary are missing; conversely, it also features unnecessary excesses

Verifiability

• Does "The front cover features a green Granny Smith apple almost entirely obscured by the band's logo and a purple foreground." have a reference? Because it isn't visually obvious, to be honest.
• The image caption "Manuel Gagneux was the main creative force behind the album, writing every song and playing every instrument except for drums." is uncited; I also feel it would serve better in the body text.
• "All tracks written by Manuel Gagneux. "Fire of Motion" features samples of speeches by Aleister Crowley, "Don't You Dare" features samples of speeches by Anton Lavey." needs a ref where the sentence is.
• Fail - several uncited statements

Neutrality

• Quoting entire paragraphs from reviews praising the album is excessive and can definitely be seen as bias. As in, the Critical reception section is literally just a list of quotes of positive reviews. I'm not saying to include one negative review if it's the only one in a sea of positive ones, that's clearly bias against by not reflecting the body of reviews, but building a section of other peoples' hyperbolic praise is still pushing it.
• Fail - has an entire section made of very positive quotes

Illustration

• Well illustrated throughout with a variety of media and tables.
• Though the Accolades table could definitely be some other kind of split list.
• Features an alternative album cover, with no discussion of this at all - not good in terms of coverage or, like, not having the image deleted from fair use.
• Fail - fails because of the use of a fair use image without any suitable fair use justification

Stability

• Hasn't had significant work done since August.
• Pass

Copyright

• Copyvio tool currently down, and 71 sources is still more than my brain can handle manually checking, so this part may have to wait until the tool works again.
• copyvio check looks scary but google play uses WP content, and the rest is from the heavy quoting. Kingsif (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
• Passes

Overall

• Putting this on hold for a response given the previous reaction to an immediate fail, but I'd still say it seems like an immediate fail. The style is just not good, and there's interspersed issues throughout in all the other criteria. Kingsif (talk) 00:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• With no response in 6 days, and given the initial assessment, I am closing this as a fail. Kingsif (talk) 23:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)