Talk:Acrobat (U2 song)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
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:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

The bibliographic entry is U2 (2006). McCormick, Neil. ed. U2 by U2. London: HarperCollins Publisher. ISBN 0-00-719668-7. The book was created in the form of discussions with Neil McCormick, who compiled the band's answers into the volume. U2 WikiProject has always credited the book to McCormick in the footnotes, including all of our FAs. Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... It's just a bit atypical since the reader should be able to easily identify the reference from the footnotes. For the FAs, did you use this exact format, identifying McCormick as the author in the cites, but U2 as the author in the references? If they thought that was acceptable at FA then we'll stick with it. Lemurbaby (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "City of Blinding Lights", Mothers of the Disappeared", Achtung Baby, and Zoo TV Tour all follow this format and were passed at FAC. Melicans (talk, contributions) 15:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All right, disregard this one. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find the first paragraph of the body of the article doesn't fit quite right and would recommend it be removed. There isn't enough of a focus on the song itself here; it's more of a general background to Achtung Baby without making an adequately explicit tie in to the particular sound and themes of this song. Otherwise, considering it wasn't a single or video and wasn't played live, this seems to cover all the available information pretty extensively, and it's well-written as always. Keep up the good work! Lemurbaby (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My intention with that first paragraph was to set the tone, as "Acrobat" is the very definition of the harder sound they sought while retaining personal lyrics. In hindsight it does not seem particularly relevant to "Writing and recording". Perhaps it would make more sense and context by placing it in "Composition and theme", where the hard sound and personal lyrics are discussed more in depth? Melicans (talk, contributions) 01:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that different placement would probably flow better. The key is to tie it in to the actual song immediately so the reader isn't left wondering why there's a paragraph about earlier U2 albums in an article about this song. Would you mind trying it out and we'll see how it looks? Lemurbaby (talk) 08:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it down a section; do you think that flows better now? Melicans (talk, contributions) 16:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ya that flows a lot better now, nice job.Millertime246 (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]