Talk:Vs. (Pearl Jam album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Lead
  • "Vs. is the second album" Should that be studio album?
    • Well, even if we're not going by studio albums, it's still their second album.-5- (talk) 00:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ten (1991)" I'd be tempted to alter this to "Ten, released in 1991,"
  • "the longest duration by a Pearl Jam album" Perhaps "for" a Pearl Jam album?
Recording
  • "The first week of recording produced "Rats", "Blood", "Go", and "Leash" before the band hit a lull" Do you have a ref for this?
Music
  • "The songs on the album tackle personal as well as social and political concerns. Topics on the album include child abuse ("Daughter"), gun culture ("Glorified G"), police racism ("W.M.A."), and the media ("Blood")." This sentence seems to sum up the rest of the paragraph. I would be tempted to put most of this in the lead, but also explain the police racism and media topics in this section.
Release
  • "first released some time in the late 1990s" very informal. If you don't know the exact date, simply put "first released during the late 1990s"
  • "Had Soundscan counted all seven days, the album would have sold more than 1,000,000 copies in its first week." Have you got a reference for this?
    • I never added this sentence, so I don't know where the editor who added this got his or her information from. This sentence was there before I really got to work on this article. I have no problem removing the unreferenced stuff if it could be a problem.-5- (talk) 00:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Imagery
  • Do you know why they decided against naming the album "Five against one"?
    • I believe I read that they didn't want focus to be placed on any one particular song, because that line comes from the song "Animal", but I can't remember where I read this.-5- (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have references for all the differences?
    • Most, if not all of the information could probably be attained from pjcollectors.com.-5- (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Vs Tour
  • What are scalpers? Is there a wikilink?
Outtakes
  • Do you have a ref for Whipping being cut? Do you know why it was cut?
    • I don't know why it was cut. The song was debuted on May 13, 1993, the same time as the other songs from Vs. The version of the song from the Vs. sessions can be found at gremmie.net.-5- (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chart positions
  • I'd be tempted to add an extra column to the position tables to put the specific refs in, rather than have a long list at the top.
    • The Ten and Vitalogy articles have the same thing, and they're listed as good articles.-5- (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd recommend doing it to all the Pearl Jam album articles; it makes it more convenient for readers to find citations. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • Where relevant, I would wikilink songs when they're first mentioned as well as the track listing section.
  • Numbers and their units should be separated with non-breaking spaces, e.g. 950,378 copies.

A bit to do, but nothing substantial, so I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 00:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review
  • (Lead) "Ten (1991)" I'd be tempted to alter this to "Ten, released in 1991,"
  • (Music) "The songs on the album tackle personal as well as social and political concerns. Topics on the album include child abuse ("Daughter"), gun culture ("Glorified G"), police racism ("W.M.A."), and the media ("Blood")." This sentence seems to sum up the rest of the paragraph. I would be tempted to put most of this in the lead, but also explain the police racism and media topics in this section.
  • (Release) "Had Soundscan counted all seven days, the album would have sold more than 1,000,000 copies in its first week." Have you got a reference for this?"
    • No. I went ahead and removed it.-5- (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Imagery) The differences section needs referencing.

Most of it is the points that haven't been addressed up till now. Some of the other points are fine at GA stage. Peanut4 (talk) 22:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

I'll pass it, but as per my comments above, I think some of the issues tackled in the songs, should be in the lead, and then more in depth analysis in the main body of the article. Maybe an idea for expansion if you wanted to take this article any further. Also could do with more images. But otherwise, looks okay. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vs._(Pearl_Jam_album)/GA1&oldid=1139470570"