Talk:Poses (album)/Archive 1
This album is connected![edit]
- All song titles serve as redirects to this album, have their own pages, or have been placed at the appropriate disambiguation pages.--Hraefen Talk 17:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
One Man Guy redirect[edit]
ResolvedI object to the search "One Man Guy" being redirected to this album. Loudon Wainwright wrote the song & performed it first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.186.222 (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. As of March 2016, the redirect still points to LWIII. Marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
GA Review[edit]
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Poses (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Checklist[edit]
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- B. MoS compliance:
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- Is it neutral?
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- The album cover for Poses is properly tagged.--Cannibaloki 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Please add an alternative text to images that are being used in this article.--Cannibaloki 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
Comments[edit]
First of all, thank you for taking the time to review this article. Much appreciated. I will start addressing your concerns as soon as possible. I see what you mean regarding original research... the sources used do address the mentioned themes, but should I remove the song examples? Also, you mentioned alt text for the images, but there are no images currently being used. Are you aware of a particular image the article could use? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- What is the difference between the sections Songs and Themes? Regarding the addition of an alternative text, see Template:Infobox_album#Alt. "... there are no images currently being used." [?]--Cannibaloki 16:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh! I did not realize alt text could be added to the album infobox. Done! I always appreciate when articles have images, so I will try to see if I can find another that could be used. Well, I thought the 'Songs' section would be good for stating a fact or two about all of the songs on the abum, including whether or not music videos existed and quotes from music critics discussing a particular song. Since the album contains so many lyrical references, I thought a 'Themes' section would be good for discussing reoccuring themes (and have the references subsection as well). Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please merge these sections as you did in Release the Stars.--Cannibaloki 18:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Would this work (see latest edit)? I combined the 'Songs' and 'Themes' sections, but kept the themes and lyrical references together for organizational purposes. Also, I removed the song examples used in the themes section (except for "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk", which is specifically used in the source), which hopefully means I have eliminated the original research. I am assuming the lyrical references do not need to be cited, as they are simply mentioned in the song lyrics themselves. If you meant to incorporate the themes and references into the original 'Songs' section, I can try to find a way to do so without ruining the flow. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I want that you to merge all these sections.--Cannibaloki 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- I went ahead and merged these sections, moving the debauchery theme section to the top of the Songs section (with "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk" and left the lyrical references at the bottom of the combined section. Hopefully this maintains a nice flow. I just need to work on the Development section. If the image and original research concerns have been addressed, feel free to let me know or change the icons above for future reference. Thanks! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I am not sure I love the caption I used for the image in the development section, but I felt the article needed another image and I think the image of Hotel Chelsea is relevant. Have all issues been addressed? --Another Believer (Talk) 01:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, [only now] I noted that you listed this article for peer review and received feedback, but although you have said to user Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), "I appreciate your feedback, and look forward to improving the article based on your recommendations." the article was not improved. So I decided that this article is not yet ready to be promoted, as much remains to be done to see some kind of improvement.--Cannibaloki 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I respect your decision, please keep in mind that some of the concerns have been addressed since then and that I asked Ruhrfishch to give feedback about possible FA status (which has more requirements than Good status). However, if you feel the article does not meet Good status, even though I was willing to continue improving the article once I received some addtional feedback from you, then I will not question your decision. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:GVF: A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points. I wrote about the lack of broad[ness] of this article during the review, see the checklist section. Anyway you failed to cover this article main points, which are the same described at peer review. Please keep in mind that not only the article was reviewed, I also evaluated your performance during this one week period.--Cannibaloki 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- I understand, and I appreciate the time you took to offer suggestions and comments. Keep up the great work, and best wishes! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- See WP:GVF: A featured article must be comprehensive; a good article must be broad. The "comprehensive" standard requires that no major fact or detail is omitted; the "broad" standard merely requires coverage of the main points. I wrote about the lack of broad[ness] of this article during the review, see the checklist section. Anyway you failed to cover this article main points, which are the same described at peer review. Please keep in mind that not only the article was reviewed, I also evaluated your performance during this one week period.--Cannibaloki 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- While I respect your decision, please keep in mind that some of the concerns have been addressed since then and that I asked Ruhrfishch to give feedback about possible FA status (which has more requirements than Good status). However, if you feel the article does not meet Good status, even though I was willing to continue improving the article once I received some addtional feedback from you, then I will not question your decision. --Another Believer (Talk) 07:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, [only now] I noted that you listed this article for peer review and received feedback, but although you have said to user Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs), "I appreciate your feedback, and look forward to improving the article based on your recommendations." the article was not improved. So I decided that this article is not yet ready to be promoted, as much remains to be done to see some kind of improvement.--Cannibaloki 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I want that you to merge all these sections.--Cannibaloki 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- Would this work (see latest edit)? I combined the 'Songs' and 'Themes' sections, but kept the themes and lyrical references together for organizational purposes. Also, I removed the song examples used in the themes section (except for "Cigarettes and Chocolate Milk", which is specifically used in the source), which hopefully means I have eliminated the original research. I am assuming the lyrical references do not need to be cited, as they are simply mentioned in the song lyrics themselves. If you meant to incorporate the themes and references into the original 'Songs' section, I can try to find a way to do so without ruining the flow. --Another Believer (Talk) 20:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please merge these sections as you did in Release the Stars.--Cannibaloki 18:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh! I did not realize alt text could be added to the album infobox. Done! I always appreciate when articles have images, so I will try to see if I can find another that could be used. Well, I thought the 'Songs' section would be good for stating a fact or two about all of the songs on the abum, including whether or not music videos existed and quotes from music critics discussing a particular song. Since the album contains so many lyrical references, I thought a 'Themes' section would be good for discussing reoccuring themes (and have the references subsection as well). Another Believer (Talk) 17:42, 30 September 2009 (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.