Talk:Loyalty to Loyalty/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 10:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This one has been in the queue for a while, so I'll take this on. I'll post a detailed review when I've had chance for a thorough read through. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 10:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead[edit]

I don't think "in the United States" is required in the first sentence
...the band started recording new material for their next album over the course of four months around California. This isn't mentioned anywhere in the body of the article, so is in contravention of MOS:LEAD which states that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." In fact, the article as a whole could do with some more information about the recording of the album (if it exists)
Loyalty to Loyalty carries a darker tone than its previous album... This also isn't mentioned in the main body.
I see any real need to link 'music festivals' and 'talk shows' per WP:OVERLINK ("everyday words understood by most readers in context") - this also applies to the same links later in the 'Background' section.
I'm not quite sure how the lead will look once you've dealt with some of the points above, but it already could be condensed down to two paragraphs - that's not a very long opening paragraph as it stands.

How does it look now? DepressedPer (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Background[edit]

but its biggest detractor came from Marc Hogan of Pitchfork Media who in his review labeled the band as being nothing more than a bunch of "Christians." There's a big problem here. Hogan was not "its biggest detractor" - he scored the album 5.0/10, whereas other people scored it lower (Q, for example, scored it 2/5). It's also completely untrue to say that he "labeled the band as being nothing more than a bunch of "Christians"" - the source just does not support this. This (and the quoted response) needs to either be rewritten of omitted.
- I've just realised that I've incorrectly cited the Q review in my comment above (wrong album, apologies!) Still, I think the point remains valid, so I'm going to copyedit the article to account for this (You've already addressed most of it anyway). Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 12:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bassist Matt Maust commented on the constant touring being way too much and that they were eager to return to the studio to write on new material. This doesn't read clearly ("way too much" is too informal for a GA)
...saying that the ultimate pursuit of mankind should be to live in community and embrace each other, not to try to trample each other and rise to the top. This looks like a direct quote from the source and should be attributed as such
This section could use some expansion around recording the album, etc. per WP:GACR #3a

I fixed the problems you addressed and made the expansion this section need. DepressedPer (talk) 00:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics[edit]

Despite the section title, there's hardly anything here about the actual music. There's nothing wrong with talking about the lyrical themes of the record, but apart from the "chord progression" bit about track 8, there is no actual mention of the music. I'd expect a GA-class article about an album to describe in some way what the album sounds like; again, this is sort of a requirement of WP:GACR #3a
We probably don't need the links to 'bohemian' and 'manifesto', as these are reasonably common words in context (in any case, that looks like the wrong kind of bohemian)
The text could be trimmed by leaving out the numerical references to every track - just the song titles would suffice, in most cases. Maybe 'first' and 'last' (or 'opener' and 'closer', as you have it) are appropriate, but numbering each one is repetitive and impedes readability

Got through some of the problems you addressed but I hit a snag with the first one; had a great explanation about the music behind "Golden Gate Jumpers" but the source it came from is part of this website's blacklist. DepressedPer (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former uses snow as a metaphor for how bleak and empty it is when its coming straight at you. This doesn't quite make sense - snow as a metaphor for how bleak and empty what is?

Rewrote it to make sense. DepressedPer (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked it slightly per MOS:N'T. — sparklism ^hey! 13:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

This section and the following one are quite short - could these be combined?
I've done some copyediting here - I hope that's OK

The C/E is good. I merged this section with the Promotion section, does it work? DepressedPer (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Release history[edit]

Ref 45 is dead
Personally, I'd like to see some prose to describe the actual release of the album (dates, formats etc), which would sit nicely in the 'Promotion' section above, but I won't hold the GA up over this

Fixed the dead ref. DepressedPer (talk) 00:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

I've not gone through the whole article yet, but at present this looks some way short of GA. I'll add more detail when I get the chance. Thanks. — sparklism ^hey! 13:14, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking a lot better. I'll get to it again in detail later...I think there's still some work to do. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 04:57, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've done quite a bit of copyediting, and many of my concerns have been addressed. There's one new point that I've raised above. Thanks — sparklism ^hey! 13:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This has turned out pretty well, DepressedPer - I'm promoting this to GA, well done! — sparklism ^hey! 13:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking time on this article. Much appreciated. DepressedPer (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]