Talk:Aphrodite (Kylie Minogue album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: WikiRedactor (talk · contribs) 21:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)


 * General
 * Some external links have rotted since the article was nominated.
 * Oh god I hate Roc Nation for rebooting Kylie's entire site. As for the Greek and Mexican chart ones, it says that these sites are under construction, so perhaps Hung Medien is doing something with them --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I see some inconsistent date formatting in the references, can you please abbreviate or write them all out in the same way (your choice)?
 * I have corrected it. There were two problems caused by addition of two citations I do not remember adding.


 * I don't think the provided external links are necessary for this article, it appears that external links for album articles are limited to Discogs or are not included at all.
 * I removed them all together --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Structure
 * I think that renaming "Songs" as "Composition" or "Musical styles and lyrics" (like in She Wolf) would make its scope clearer.
 * I'd pull "Singles" out into its own section before "Release and promotion", since it's large enough to be its own heading.
 * I would rename "Chart performance" as "Commerical performance" so it isn't so similar to the "Charts" section that follows.
 * Can you add a "Release history" section with release dates from major markets (Australia, U.K., U.S., etc.) Even though the article says it was released worldwide on July 5, my iTunes in the U.S. says that it was released here on July 2, so I would imagine that the specific day fluctuated a bit in a few other countries.


 * Infobox
 * Please use the template for the length.
 * For the album chronology, can you use the template?
 * For the singles' release dates, can you use the template?
 * Done all --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 12:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I made some minor revisions to the introduction, although I decided to suggest some of the larger changes here for you to consider:
 * Introduction
 * I think the layout of the first paragraph is good, although I was thinking that maybe the second paragraph could be critical/commercial reception and the third could be for singles/promotion?
 * Does Australian people need to be linked in the first sentence? Especially since Australia isn't an obscure country.
 * I think it's assumed that Parlophone is her record label, does that need to be specifically stated?
 * "Although successful at first, the sessions later became unproductive, leading to Minogue working instead with British electronic music producer Stuart Price, who was enlisted as the executive producer of the album." Maybe this could be reworded like "Although successful at first, the sessions later became unproductive; Minogue then began working with British electronic music producer Stuart Price, who became the record's executive producer."
 * I think that "narrowly missing the top ten" is a little redundant since you already mentioned the track's specific peak.

I made some minor revisions to this section, although I decided to suggest some of the larger changes here for you to consider:
 * Background and production
 * Can you make the quote box 25%? I think this might look nicer in the article, so it doesn't stick out so much into the actual paragraph.
 * Can you elaborate a little bit more on the introspection X was criticized for lacking?
 * Maybe you can replace the term "later on" with something like "in retrospect" for a more encyclopedic tone.
 * Can you find the name of the specific author that commented in Popjustice? If that's not available, something like "a writer for Popjustice" would suffice.


 * Songs
 * Aside from some minor grammatical fixes I made myself, my only comment here would be that I don't think the statue picture is needed.


 * Release and promotion
 * In the first part of the section, I took care of one instance of overlinking myself, and I don't see anything else to address.


 * Singles
 * Is there a particular reason why critics had such a change in heart with "Better Than Today" after it became a single?
 * They are too moody perhaps --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Critical reception
 * This section seems pretty large by comparison with similar sections in other albums' articles, maybe because its only two paragraphs are very long. Can you break them each down into a couple paragraphs, and maybe remove/relocate the picture, so it looks a little more manageable in size?
 * I have condensed it a bit, and sorted out in the order - positive, mixed, and mixed-to-negative. --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ up until this point (I accidentally removed this comment that WonderBoy1998 left in an earlier revision.)


 * Commercial performance
 * I took care of a few minor grammatical fixes, and I have no other comments to raise for this section.


 * Track listing
 * Could you make a note that the credits were adapted from the liner notes of Aphrodite?


 * Charts
 * Looks good to me!


 * Certifications
 * This section is also in great shape!


 * Release history
 * Same here!

Like all of your articles, the spot-checking went smooth as ever, and after the couple comments I've added above are addressed, I'll have no issue promoting the article! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the review, comments, and help! You started the review just before it was to enter the backlog! The issues have been addressed :) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, I'm glad that I could help! With all of the comments addressed, I am going to go ahead and pass the article. Great work! WikiRedactor (talk) 21:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)