Talk:Blame Game/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• I'm going to be beginning the review. I want to compliment you on the seemingly amount of researched you've done, but I'm afraid you need some prose work. Try and have a freind copy-edit or just really try and analyze every sentence.

• Prose - "who praised the vocal performance of Legend, the sincerity expressed by West, and the subject matter." -> very poor and difficult to understand

"Following several media controversies, West decided to record his next album in a reclusive manner only working with artists he considered himself familiar with" -> again this sentence could be re-worked so much better -> In an attempt to diminish public scrutiny following several of his publicized controversies, West opted to work more familiar writers,[was never specific - writers, producers, directors?) in keeping with his goal of artistic privacy.

Media

The audio sample needs a better rational and actual sourcing

Content

I think you over-did it a bit with so many repetitive reviews. This article needs some pruning

References

They need some work. #24 isn't para-metered, a lot of the titles are inconsistantly italicised (they shouldn't be), many are missing publishers (they have the works) #'s 25-27

• I'm placing the article on hold for seven days, if by which time, sufficient progress hasn't been met, it will result in a fail. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Check the article now. I reduced the length of the review section and removed repetitive critical opinion, along with tweaking other issues. In addition the great Dan56 copy-edited and I think it reads far better now. Bruce Campbell (talk) 16:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• I think the reviews section is still too repetitive and overly-detailed. As of now, the prose still need tightening. "who praised the vocal performance of Legend" - > basic things like this take away from the read. Try working on them a bit more. I'll later post more instances as you keep improving them so we can close the nomination :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 22:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reduced, resummarized and straight-up removed content from the reception section further... Could you cite some more issues if there any? Bruce Campbell (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• The "Reception" section is still very large and repetitive. What difference (aside from boring the reader) between having 10 reviews or 30? I suggest a good 30% reduction. Also, the photo is much too large. After these are addressed, we can proceed to prose and references. The faster the gets done, the closer you are to a pass. The article definitely looks like it's in pretty good shape.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• • Any updates?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 09:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
    • You still working on it?--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

• Bruce has just yesterday reverted all GANs that had not yet obtained a reviewer, and his edit summaries said that he's leaving the project (which I think means Wikipedia). He's also posted about this here on his talk page. Under the circumstances, if this isn't ready to be passed, then I think you'll have to fail it. Sorry for the bad news. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I picked up copy-editing the article. I reduced the section and removed the image here. Dan56 (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the above has been addressed if the review can be wrapped up. Wizardman 02:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Sicne there's no further comments I'll pass this. Wizardman 18:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)