Talk:Travelling (Roxette album)

The cover does not load

And I don't know how to fix it! I just replaced it with a new file, and it works perfectly. The problem is I don't know if the previous picture (Roxette-Travelling.jpg) should be deleted or not. Thanks! Faezdel (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Travelling (Roxette album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miss Sarita (talk · contribs) 21:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Infobox

• The only thing I can say about this section, and this is only for consistency's sake (I'm a wee bit picky): it has been advised on the infobox's template that for the "studio" parameter, words like "studios" should be dropped. So, "Atlantis Studios" would just be listed as "Atlantis". This particular parameter features quite a lengthy list, so perhaps that will also help to whittle it down a bit. But it doesn't seem to be a rule written in stone; simply a recommendation.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Lead

• It is a direct sequel to their 1992 album Tourism, although, unlike that album, which was recorded in numerous locations all over the world during the "Join the Joyride! Tour" between 1991 and 1992, Travelling was primarily recorded in Swedish studios in-between legs of "The Neverending World Tour".

This single sentence contains a lot of information. What do you think about possibly breaking it up?

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Background and recording

• Per MOS:OVERLINK, what do you think about unlinking common nouns, such as "hotels" and "nightclubs")? This is just a suggestion; not necessary criteria for me in order to pass the article.

Done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Track listing

• Vinyl edition (bonus tracks) has source but iTunes edition does not?

It must've been just a pre-order bonus track, since this "iTunes exclusive" version of the album isn't available anymore. I personally don't think there's much point in including something that no longer exists, so I've removed this. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Refs

• Ref 5: Is the information that this ref cites only seen in the published book and not the web page?

The website is based on the book (with permission of the author). The book was released in 2003, so all pre-2006 information can be cited to the book itself (and seen on the website), while information about the Bassflow remix of "The Sweet Hello, the Sad Goodbye" (2012) is cited to the website. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 8 and Ref 9: What makes "The Daily Roxette" a reliable source?

It's an official website, and has been listed as such in several of their booklets (Most legibly here... on the last page of text). I'd ordinarily avoid such primary sources, but these two are exclusive interviews with Per Gessle, containing information not found in any other source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 13: Throwing a 404 error.

Replaced. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 17: I never thought my eye sight was the best, but I can't seem to find the album rating.

I swear it used to be there. I guess they removed the rating between the time I added the source (March 2018) and the time archive.org did its thing with the page. Replaced this rating with another. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 20: Article says 3/5 stars, but I am seeing 2/5 stars in this source.

Fixed. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 31: Link takes me to homepage. Archived link just says "Vänta..."
• Ref 32: Followed instructions for link. Finally found the album, but it's not listing certifications...

^ Both of these are Sverigetopplistan, which has recently updated their website. It used to be a flash-based site, so was impossible to link directly to any individual page. They've changed that, so I've updated all these links. The only problem now is that you can't Alt+F for anything immediately, you have to scroll right down to the bottom of the page to give the whole chart a chance to load up. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

• Ref 35: Not sure what's going on with this one, but you might want to take a look at it.

WebCite seems to be dying a death of sorts. Just randomly checking other URLs for comparison shows nothing – or very little – is actually loading (at least on my computer). Even stuff that Wikipedia heavily relies on (like their archives for Billboard's Boxscore circa 2008–2013). I've removed this ref, but a lot of people on Wikipedia are gonna realise very soon that the site they used as references for attendance and revenue data on tour article pages are dead. =( Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

General

• Earwig's Copyvio Tool came back with some results, but those were only resulting from direct quotes. This is good.
• Checklinks is good.

Comments

Review complete. There really wasn't much to do here. This is a pretty solid article. I will pass once my pickiness is satisfied. :-) — Miss Sarita 21:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review, @Miss Sarita: and sorry to keep you waiting so long for a response. I can never find time to edit on weekends. But I think I've fixed everything you said above. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. And thanks again. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

No worries, @Homeostasis07. Your responses came quite quickly. So, this is a pass. Congrats and you're very welcome! Stay in touch! :-) — Miss Sarita 23:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

---

Checklist

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: