Talk:Hall of Fame (Big Sean album)/GA3

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Вик Ретлхед (talk · contribs) 23:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, third time, hope this one will be lucky. I'll just list the things left to be done:

the quote "was not going by the label standards" should be paraphrased without quote marks. The quotation can start with "I'm not going by the club standards".
"and every album after" should be dropped because it sounds like an uncertain intention rather than a fact.
The mixtape consisted of completely original songs. — Can you change "completely original songs" with previously unreleased songs?
So on August 14, 2013, the song was sent to mainstream urban radio
don't see a reason why "next ten days" should be quoted
visually, it isn't plausible to have so many small paragraphs in the "Singles". Try merging some of them.
the first criteria (the prose being repetitive) hasn't been addressed yet. For example, you can write that "The song became digitally available the following day." to avoid repeating with the text about the lead single "Beware". Second thing, try to avoid using word constructions like "During an August 1, 2013 listening session" or "a July 2013 interview".
as for the references: ref no. 81 seems questionable. I believe that GA shouldn't rely on social websites like Myspace.

Did you just want that one part of the quote broken up, or the whole thing?

Just the first part→"was not going by the label standards"

Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
Done.
If you could give some examples of "prose being repetitive", I thought I had took care of it, besides the "Beware" paragraph, I did not see any. And I have now fixed that. I also fixed that two word constructions you detailed, are there anymore?
On the MySpace point, the MySpace now is completely different to how it was a few years ago. If you view the citation, Sean collaborated with MySpace and they had this big feature on the album, discussing all the songs and revealing the album credits, which is what is being cited from that source. It is not just some random forum, or post, or something like that. Citing MySpace or citing the liner notes would serve the same purpose, but considering the type of feature it was, it would be appropriate. But if you disagree I will cite it the other way. At least this way it is online for someone to verify if needed. STATic message me! 17:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually checked the source and it looks like a high-standard report, you known, being authorized and detailed. I think it can stay.

OK, I've made some minor correction on the prose, and after this reading, I think the article is ready to be promoted. I guess the review was exhausting for you, but the effort has finally paid off. Congratulations.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, I appreciate it greatly. Credit also goes to you for the dedication to the review. STATic message me! 20:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]