Talk:Duran Duran (1981 album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 05:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks pretty good, just a few minor issues that need to be addressed. Thebiguglyalien ( talk ) 19:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * My apologies for not getting to this sooner I had a very busy weekend. I will start on this tonight or tomorrow. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing, I really appreciate it. I also appreciate someone not reviewing until after I did my much-needed prose edits. My replies are below. Thanks again. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:02, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * , the changes look good. Check the notes I left about the reception section, and make sure any claims in the article supported exclusively by primary sources (i.e. Andy Taylor and John Taylor) are attributed. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the changes you've made to this point, and I think it's sufficient for the good article criteria. I made one change to attribute an opinion in reception to the specific authors, but as always, feel free to change it if you think there's a better way to approach it. With that, I'll pass the review. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 03:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Well-written

Prose:
 * Duran Duran boasts a mixture – "boasts" seems vaguely promotional/informal
 * Fixed


 * Duran Duran agreed to credit all songs to the band and split all earnings evenly; John credits this – using "credit" two different ways in the same sentence is distracting
 * Fixed


 * and what became "Khanada" – why is this one singled out?
 * Fixed


 * with Thurston on Boxing Day – is it significant that it was Boxing Day?
 * Nope


 * heavy blues rock bands which included AC/DC and Van Halen – are these bands known for their blues rock?
 * Simplified to rock


 * which Rhodes later called a form of irony – elaborate.
 * Done


 * The "Reception" section is well organized, but it does suffer from "[reviewer] said [quote]" format. Paraphrase and summarize over quote when possible. As always, I defer to the suggestions in WP:RECEPTION.
 * I always struggle with that. How's that look? I assume good enough for GA? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking better. My main concern is that it falls into WP:WEASEL a little bit, which is easy to do with reception sections. Any time "critics" or "some critics" say something, we should get an idea of who is saying that. This is especially true if the sources just provide the opinions of one or two people instead of explicitly supporting the claim that "this is a widely held opinion". The only prose issue is that Some reviewers were positive towards the music reads strangely to me, as it seems redundant to say that the reviewers are talking about the music. Finally, it wouldn't hurt to trim and/or paraphrase more of the quotes, but I also realize I'm more of a stickler about quotes than most reviewers, so just consider that a suggestion rather than a GA requirement. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * the band's current single – This makes it sound like it's the band current single today in 2023. Clarify the time period.
 * Changed it to "then-current"


 * The remastering had a negative reaction from fans as a victim of the loudness war. Listeners particularly cited "Girls on Film" as containing a defect which is not present in any other mastering of the song. – I suggest rewriting these sentences. They're stilted and difficult to read, especially with the passive voice.
 * How's that look?

Manual of Style:
 * Empty "notes" section
 * Is this a question to a statement? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the second level Notes section above References. But it looks like you got it. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Just a thought, but enough is said about "Planet Earth" that it might justify having its own paragraph.
 * Done


 * "Release and promotion" is a bit long and might benefit from subsections, if there's a reasonable way to divide it.
 * Is it possible to turn the "notes" list under "track listing" into prose?
 * Done


 * Verifiable with no original research
 * Sources by Andy and John are not independent and should be used carefully. Most uses are attributed, but I suggest removing any instances where they are not.
 * I was afraid of that. I tried using Malins and Davis as much as I could and have the other two fill in the gaps. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * They still look usable. Just make sure they're attributed if they're the only citation supporting that claim. Thebiguglyalien  ( talk ) 17:11, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Took care of the ones that weren't properly attributed. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:12, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm noticing the article is a bit quote-heavy. I don't think it's quite to the point where it's a problem, but it's something to keep an eye on.
 * Critics felt the band lacked the skills needed to separate themselves from other New Romantic artists. – I can't access the sources for this. Do they say that critics in general felt this way, or are they specific examples of critics making that point? If it's the latter, it should be attributed.
 * The two critics that are sourced both say that (Robbins and Bohn) – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Spotchecks:
 * Zaleski (2016): Checked all four uses. Was this the 40th-anniversary retrospective, or was this confused with the other Zaleski source?
 * That's my bad that was a small confusion. Fixed.


 * Evans (1981): Good.
 * Shuker (2001): Checked both uses. Doesn't support that "Girls on Film" was filmed in August or that it was banned on the BBC.
 * Fixed


 * Tebbutt (1981): Good.
 * Michaels (2010): Doesn't support relevance of the "loudness war" or the quote "by far in the minority".
 * Tried to reword the best I can. The only other source I can seem to find is "Slicing Up Eyeballs" which doesn't strike me as reliable so I'm not sure how much else I can do.


 * Malins (2013): Checked all uses of the first three chapters. Seems to slightly contradict developing their sound with occasional live performances, as the source says they did their performances first, then had the writing period with only one live performance during it.
 * Removed the live part.

It might be good to expand on the lyrics a little bit, as most songs only get one sentence or even less. Especially if there's anything that could be said about the direction they took "Tel Aviv". But coverage is sufficient for GA.
 * Broad in its coverage
 * I tried to as much as I could but unfortunately couldn't find too much. I've found Duran Duran doesn't get near enough coverage in reliable sources in modern times. You could find swaths of blogs and the like reviewing the albums but they're all unreliable so I had to make do with what I could. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:01, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The opinion of Malins is given a lot of weight throughout the article. A little opinion is fine, but try not to use Malins's more than that of other sources.
 * Neutral
 * Think I took care of this. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 16:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No recent edits except by nominator, no talk page disputes.
 * Stable

All images are relevant and suitably captioned. Album covers have valid non-free use rationales.
 * Illustrated