Talk:By Your Side (The Black Crowes album)/GA1

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

This article is close to GA, so good work!
 * Thanks, and thank you for the thorough review...


 * I assume from the sections that there was not an accompanying tour for this album, and nothing of note has been mentioned about the album's artwork? It wasn't nominated for any awards and it has had no major influence on popular culture or other bands? All fine if so, I just wanted to make sure the article hasn't missed anything.
 * There certainly was a tour, and it will be discussed eventually, but I don't think it's one of the "main aspects" required to be covered in a good article. No to the other stuff.
 * Hmmm... I think a mention of the tour would be good, but I agree that it's not critical.
 * Great job with the sourcing overall. I looked up some of the newspaper sources and they were correct. Only a couple of problems I saw: the CMJ links don't work for me and one of citation templates has retrieval dates of "2008-10-11" instead of "October 11, 2008" - I think that template has changed recently, so you'll just need to update those refs.
 * Looks like CMJ is down for the moment. Let's see what happens in a few days...
 * Ref formatting fixed.
 * File:The Black Crowes - Virtue and Vice.ogg does not have a fair use rationale for this article.
 * Fixed.

Lead

 * "It was released in early 1999 on Columbia Records, where the band had moved as part of Columbia's acquisition of previous label American Recordings." - sentence is too long and does not flow well.
 * "as Rich Robinson played all the guitar parts following the firing of Marc Ford." - does not flow well.
 * "Bassist Johnny Colt had also left and been replaced by Sven Pipien." - fragment that does not flow well.
 * "The songs included on the album" - redundant words; could just say "the album's songs" or similar.
 * "an amalgam of holdovers" - keep language simple.
 * "received generally positive reviews" - are they "generally positive" in that each review was mostly positive, or that overall, most of the reviews were positive but there were some bad reviews?
 * "depreciated" - does not make sense. It's likely you mean "deprecated", but that's not great either. Maybe you could say "some reviewers criticized" or "some critics condemned" instead?
 * Fixed all these issues except "depreciated". See the "synonyms" discussion here.
 * All good, but I'm still not sold on "depreciated" being the best word to use - even if a word's only slightly unclear or ambiguous, I still think it's better to replace it with something else. ;)

Background

 * I think a little more here about Three Snakes would be appropriate, like how successful it was and when exactly it was released (to show how long it was between albums). What was expected of the band and their next album?
 * I disagree. What happened with Band is more relevant (and I added another sentence to that end), but even then, The Black Crowes don't concern themselves with what other people expect of them.
 * They mightn't care, but I thought the reader might?
 * "The Black Crowes in 1997 recorded" - replace with "In 1997, The Black Crowes recorded".
 * Fixed.
 * The mention of Band recordings being on The Lost Crowes does not fit. I don't think it's needed, or at least it's not needed in this position.
 * Removed.
 * "In August of that year" - could just be "In August".
 * Fixed.
 * "that was affecting his performance ability" - could be "that affected his performances"?
 * Okay.
 * "Johnny Colt had been drifting away from the band" - "drifting away" seems too informal.
 * How's "losing interest"?
 * Much better.
 * "the band felt more freedom" - "felt they had more freedom".
 * Fixed.

Writing and production

 * "with songs that would either undergo substantial reworking or be dropped altogether" - should be "with songs that would later undergo substantial reworking or be dropped altogether"?
 * Fixed.
 * "because it affords Ed and Sven "a lot of space"" - refer to people by their surnames outside of quotes and aside from Chris and Rich.
 * Fixed. I think I used more of the quote when I first added it, and reworded minimally later.

Critical reception

 * Retitle to "Reception", and include something about the fans' reception (by which I mean units sold compared to previous albums; chart positions compared to previous albums).
 * Will include a "Promotion and release" section by the time I nominate for FA, but again, I don't think this is one of the major aspects needed for GA. If sales numbers and chart success were important to this band, I'd agree...
 * Mightn't be important to the band, but it might be interesting to the reader.

Personnel

 * It would be good if readers could tell what instrument each band member played without having to see where the piped links go. I suggest either changing the descriptions to "vocals"/"guitar" etc or using brackets, e.g. "diva" (vocals).
 * Fixed.

Charts

 * Retitle section to "Chart positions", as it consists of lists of chart positions, not for example, prose describing the album's progression through the charts. Good job with the sourcing.
 * Fixed.

Notes/References

 * Combine these sections.
 * I'd prefer to keep it as is. I have some shortened footnotes in the notes section and want to treat Crowesbase the same way (though it's a website).  Was done with my FA Lions (album), as well.
 * Two sections just seemed unnecessary to me, but it's not a deal breaker.

All that's necessary to make this a good article is to clarify that there are no missing sections (and if they are missing, add them), fix the media file's fair use rationale, expand the Reception section a little, and fix the prose problems above. I have put the article on hold for one week to allow you to address these issues because it's very close to GA. :) Regards, Somno (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for the review. Let's see if I've addressed your concerns sufficiently... —Zeagler (talk) 15:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That was a very quick response! You've fixed the prose issues (although I'm still not convinced that "depreciated" is the best word ;) and most things you don't want to change are fine with me because they were just suggestions. I would like some comparisons in sales to previous albums and a bit more about what was expected of them, simply because even though they don't care about that stuff, the reader might find it interesting. I've thought carefully and I don't think that's a deal breaker here, but can you please reconsider adding that information in the future? Somno (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the listing. The kinds of things you'll find at Lions (album) are what I'm looking to add in the future.  I don't know where I'd find anything about what was expected of The Black Crowes on By Your Side (and by whom?), but what American Recordings was expecting with Band was alluded to.  I don't know what Columbia would have expected (especially given the band's comments about how much freedom they had)... —Zeagler (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By whom, I meant the record company, music reviewers and fans. It's only if the information is out there, of course, so I guess just keep an eye out for it when you're expanding the article. Good luck with FA, although I'm sure you won't need it because you know what you're doing. :) Somno (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Final review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This article meets the above criteria so I'm promoting it to GA. Congrats! Somno (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: