Talk:52 (album series)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Nominator: 18:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: IanTEB (talk · contribs) 16:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I think this article is generally well-written but I have some concerns about the abundance of primary interview sources. I’ll give a full review but will request a second opinion, hopefully from an editor with more GA reviews and nominations than me; this is only my second review.

Background and release

 * "with Andrew Hyra as the duo alternative folk rock band Billy Pilgrim" - I think duo can be removed here


 * "Bush's 50th birthday coincided with the day the United States government mandated lockdowns in response to the COVID-19 pandemic." I would cut this sentence since it doesn’t seem to lead into anything
 * ✅, but merged the covid details with the other sentence


 * ”Bush originally planned to release the songs independently; always anticipating someone would appear to greenlight a project to that scale, he finally accepted that "no one was coming" and he would need to put the idea into motion on his own. He called the CEO of Big Machine Records Scott Borchetta, the label for Sugarland, and explained the idea to him, simply so he was aware of what he was doing.[5] To Bush's surprise Borchetta was intrigued and supported the project.” I recommend cutting this down. Perhaps something like “Not finding a label for the project, Bush planned to release the series on his own. He contacted Scott Borchetta, the CEO of Sugarland’s label Big Machine Records, and explained the project to keep him updated with his plans. To Bush's surprise, Borchetta was intrigued and supported the project" would be good


 * ”He described the podcast as "the liner notes I always wish I had, with the person that I always wished had written them."” For promotional stuff like this I don’t think it’s recommended to keep full quotes; I would remove it entirely

52 | ATL x BNA

 * ”9 of the 10 on the album were co-written” Assuming you mean “9 of the 10 songs”?
 * Yes check.svg 


 * ”The blend was inspired from a live performance” I think this should specificy blend of country and R&B


 * ”energy with a unique blend of country music” Remove “unique” here for NPOV
 * ✅, and replaced "blend" for redundancy


 * ”He noticed that the country music emphasized "the song" and the R&B instrumentation emphasized "the energy".” I would cut this. If it was from a secondary journalist I think comments like this are good, but with primary sourcing it almost feels vague and non-neutral


 * ”’Tennessee Plates’ was written in 2016 following the death of his father, Jack Bush” Remove the name of his father since he doesn’t have an article and is not mentioned by name again


 * ”encouraged Bush to comfortable discussing death in music” change to “to be comfortable” or “to feel comfortable”


 * ”Flynn appreciated the depth of the lyrics and believed they are just as strong without the music” remove this for NPOV, comments like this should ideally only be used from secondary sources

52 | In the Key of Summer

 * ”features positive instrumentation and writing” maybe change “positive” to a more neutral adjective like happy or upbeat
 * ✅ Yes! "Upbeat" was the word I was looking for! I hated using the word positive here because it felt so out of place.


 * ”"a beach song with a smile on it. When you play even a sad song of Kristian's, it's a sad song with a smile on it."” I would prefer to remove everything after the first sentence of the quote


 * ”The lyrics of the song are a reflection of emotions associated with summer” what song is this referring to? or do you mean songs plural?
 * ✅ Songs, just a type


 * Are the songs that released ahead singles? If so, add them to the infobox with Template:Singles

52 | New Blue

 * Remove capitalization from “Rock” in the infobox’s genre parameter. I would also prefer an alt text is added to every cover


 * ”"Sailing to Arizona"'s lyrics were written to be an anthem of taking chances” Anthem feels a little POV (even if it is attributed), maybe you could change it to something else?
 * ✅, merged it with another sentence


 * Overall good though!

52 | This Year

 * ”The album focuses on its melodies and themes of true love” “its” can be removed


 * ”The title is derived from the lyrics last song on the album,” do you mean “from the lyrics to the last song on the album”?


 * ”’New Year's resolution #7’ consists of a list of what he wanted to change about himself change first “he” to “Bush”.

Lead and infobox

 * The image could use an alt text
 * ”singer, songwriter, and record producer” change “singer, songwriter” to singer-songwriter
 * ”with the release first two songs of the collection” change to “with the release of the first two songs on the collection”
 * ”Encouraged by his work releasing” to “encouraged by his work of releasing”
 * ”The music co-written with many other songwriters” add a “was” before co-written
 * ”weekly podcast with music journalist Cindy Watts spanning 52 weeks.” you can remove Watts’ name here
 * ”and is a collection of music” you can remove the “and”
 * ”and consisted of themes about true love” same as the above comment

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig detects nothing but the quotes, though I would recommend cutting a few that I've listed in the review.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * Images have fair use or are under creative commons.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Alt text needed, otherwise all good.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Apart from the issues I've outlined, the prose is quote good, the article is illustrated, and sources are cited properly. My main concern lies within the heavy usage of primary interview sources. Everything apart from Entertainment Focus and The Music Universe seems to be interviews with the subject. As a result, the article primarily discusses 52 from the perspective of Bush; there is nothing about the thoughts of critics, commercial performance, or musical analysis. If these sources don't exist it may be difficult to ever get this album series to GA. I'm unsure if these issues calls for a fail, but I'm also not certain if it could pass even if all my outlined issues are adressed, so I will call in a more experienced editor for a second opinion. I apologize if this delays the process of getting the review finished. IanTEB (talk) 09:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I really hope this and the other fails you mentioned don't discourage you from contributing more to music articles. Browsing your userpage, I think Something Like This and The Joy of Music (album) could both pass GA reviews and The Walking in Between could get there with a copyedit. If you submit any, I can absolutely review them or help out. IanTEB (talk) 16:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hey @IanTEB, thank you very much for the detailed review! And sorry for the late response. I'll work on your comments as soon as I can.
 * Uh, I agree... I'm not too sure why I ever submitted this for GAN? Without being able to fill in more specific information about each album individually (hence why they're all together), I don't see this article escaping WP:PERMASTUB. Not that it is a stub, but it certainly will be difficult to expand further on the comprehensiveness side of things.
 * I apologize for the immature nomination, and I'm perfectly fine with you failing this nomination. Since I wasted your time technically, feel free to let me know when you nominate a video game for GA and I'll give you a quid pro quo for your time. I've only recently started working on music articles and I'm still trying to get a grasp on what GA means to them. Just recently I had a quick-failed album GAN and a failed DYK nomination for another, although I did have one music-related DYK success. Panini!  • 🥪 22:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are in agreeance, I will unfortunately fail this nomination, but I do really appreciate you taking the time to implement most of my suggestions. You don't need to feel as if you've wasted anyone's time; over-reliance on primary sourcing in music articles is something I can very much relate to (for example, it was the reason for my GA withdrawals of Lighthouse (EP) and the accompanying talk show). I think the VG article Danganronpa S: Ultimate Summer Camp that I wrote in 2021 is close to GA but I never submitted it out of uncertainty. If I do nominate it I'll let you know, if you are willing to review it of course :)