Talk:A Moon Shaped Pool/GA1

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, let's get to it:


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

The following things need sorting out:
 * Infobox: That the album is considered "art rock" is well sourced in the "Music and lyrics" section, however, that does not apply to the "electronica" label. This would need a source in the respective section or be scrapped from the infobox.
 * Good spot. ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Lead: I'd add the year to the date at the end, considering that it is not self-explanatory that the album goes gold in the year of release.
 * Yep. ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Recording: "In 2015 they resumed work in ..." Two things here: First, it is already established two sentences earlier that they resumed work in March 2015, so this is a little redundant.
 * Good point. ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Secondly, if it says where they resume work, the question arises where they have worked before?
 * Unfortunately, we don't know. It hasn't been discussed in any source I can find (and I think I've read everything). Radiohead's increasing tendency not to do many interviews makes writing Wikipedia articles harder. I would guess their Oxford studio but that's only my speculation. Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Recording: As far as I know, it needs to be "8- and 16-track recorders".
 * I think you're right, but I decided to simplify it to just "multitrack recorders". Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Music and lyrics: This is not absolutely necessary, but since the official name of the paper is "The Guardian", I think it would be preferable to put the "The" in italics as well.
 * Confession: this is a cause of great irritation to me. You're right in that the official Wikipedia style guide considers the entire name The Guardian and therefore 'The' should be capitalised and italicised. As a copy editor by trade, and nerdy lover of style guides, I consider this an archaic and senseless rule that will eventually change, just as it's already changed in many newspaper and online style guides, including the Guardian's own. Until that day, though, I grudgingly have to bow to Wiki policy. Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Release: "It contains the album in CD..." - This is a little weird to read considering that the sentence before was in past tense. I know why this is done, but still feel that for a more fluent reading experience, keeping it in past tense would be better.
 * ❌ The special edition continues to exist and is still for sale at retail I believe, so should be written about in the present tense, I think... Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Promotion: Just a quick notice that obviously, for this article to retain GA status (should it be promoted), the last sentences of this section need to be updated once the stuff has happened.
 * For sure. I'm pretty good at keeping stuff up to date. Popcornduff (talk) 08:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Critical reception: Source #102 only lists the Grammy nominations, the information about the Pitchfork list is unsourced.
 * Whoops, good catch. I think an edit got lost there somewhere. ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Track listing and Personnel: Both of these sections need sources. The liner notes of the album (and the special edition) will do, but I am sure there are other sources for that as well.
 * ✅ Went with the liner notes, which only credit "Radiohead", not the individual members of Radiohead. I hope it's OK to list them as I have as I think no reasonable person would presume it didn't mean those people. Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Release history: A Japanese release is mentioned in the prose, shouldn't that be included here as well?
 * Wow, I don't think I've ever looked at this part of the article before. I've included the Japan release with a source, but I can't figure out why it's displaying in bold, even in the source editor. I'll check it out again later. Popcornduff (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Notes and references: This is the biggest problem of the article, the references are quite a mess. What I feel needs to be done is:
 * Consistency in date formats, so far, there are many references with the year-month-day format, while I would prefer if all were Day Month (as a word) Year.
 * ✅ (I hope) Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Several references, such as #9 and #10, but also several others, contain things like "NME.com" in the page title, which is not necessary and should be removed. The weirdest instance is ref #56, where apparently a whole part of the search form of the website found its way into the reference.
 * ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Several references give a page title, but no publisher or website name (# 36, 54, 57, 58, 71,73). These should be added.
 * ✅ (I hope) Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * References #1 and #2 are the same source, these need to be merged.
 * ✅ Popcornduff (talk) 08:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

That's all I could find. Overall, a very well written article that is worthy of GA status once the reference section gets cleaned up. Up until then, this review is on hold. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for this thoughtful review. Another confession: I find making references neat and tidy extremely tedious work, so I always wait for GA reviewers to catch the problems before going in for the final polishing sweep. Which is a selfish and lazy strategy, but... *gulp*
 * I've responded to your concerns as best I can. Let me know what needs to happen next. Popcornduff (talk) 11:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied with the edits done to this article. You've noticed that I made some minor changes myself. Especially the reference section looks a lot better now. I can gladly promote this article to GA status. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Great news. Thanks for your work on the review and the article. Popcornduff (talk) 13:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)