Talk:El Camino (The Black Keys album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: BenLinus1214 (talk · contribs) 01:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Second on my "to review" list. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 01:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments:


 * In the lead, I wouldn't put the genre/influence stuff so early--it doesn't follow the structure of the article. Instead, move the portion "El Camino draws from popular genres…The Cars and Johnny Bernette." down and put the stuff summarizing the "background" and "recording and production" sections before it.
 * ✅ — Sentence removed. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree - most well-written album articles lead off with the musical description fairly early in the lead. There's nothing forcing us to follow the same content order in the lead as there is in the article body. Maybe musical influences aren't necessary though. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "retro" is a bit informal--maybe "older musical acts"?
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Because the album received other accolades besides the Grammys, I would start that sentence in the lead with "Among other accolades, El Camino won the award for Best Rock Album…"
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would put a little about the album's platinum sales record, like "the album was certified platinum in several countries, including…"
 * ✅ — ---> " The album was also certified platinum in France, Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States, as well as multi-platinum in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand." Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "Through the first eight years of their career…" This sentence isn't working for me very well. I would combine it with the next sentence: "From 2001-2009, The Black Keys experienced underground success, but after the release of their critically acclaimed sixth studio album, Brothers, the group achieved a commercial breakthrough."
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "The band also gained additional exposure…" I don't like the wording of "so much so that" in this sentence--just replace those four words with "becoming"
 * ✅ — I used "making them" instead of becoming, if that's okay. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think the Spin and SNL things are really necessary for the readers of this article, do you?
 * ✅ — Both sentences are better for the band's article, but not the album's article. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I found it confusing from your wording whether he was dealing with his divorce during this recording session or the previous one. I think you mean the previous one? If so, replace "when" with "during which" to make it clearer.
 * ✅ — Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The short "brainstormed until we had songs" quote sounded like they wrote a song every day, which is explicitly stated as not the case in the source. To fix this, put more of the quote in ref 15 into the article.
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "The band focused on the vocal melodies more so than the lyrics" This is a bit repetitive of the previous statement--it's basically a restatement of a slightly different thing.
 * ✅ — Sentence removed. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "The group wrote the new songs while continuing to tour for Brothers…" I'm confused. It was a bit unclear before that they resumed touring in April, and also, I thought you said they wrote all there songs in a couple days in the studio.
 * I got rid of the sentence that you've listed here. On the other hand, I don't see anything stating that the song were wrote in a couple days. I think I'm just missing something, but if you can point it out, that'd be great. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think this section should just be titled "Recording"--"Recording and production" is a little redundant.
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think a genre could be considered a "formula"--I might replace with "style"
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * A file of one of the bands that influenced the work in this section might be nice.
 * ✅ — I added two: one of The Clash and one of The Beatles. I can get rid of one if two is unnecessary. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "In contrast to some of the slower, quieter tracks from Brothers, the songs on El Camino are more uptempo and employ more hooks and riffs." This doesn't seem to be sourced, as the next ref (ref 6) doesn't seem to include it.
 * ✅ — Sentence removed. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * "throughout their new material" almost makes it sound like they were going to do everything uptempo from now on for any future albums as well. Just put "throughout the album".
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Do we have any quotes or statements from the band about why they chose this title?
 * "The inspiration came from the band sighting an El Camino while on tour in Canada in 2010; Carney admitted that the title was selected "as a joke"." It was already in this section, but it should work. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why isn't there a link to Chrysler?
 * ✅ — Fixed. Aria1561 (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The source says that they never released the album on streaming services--the sentence, and particularly the use of the word "withhold", made me check because it makes it sound like they just delayed a release.
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any way to use other sources to find out what songs were used in these other media?
 * Not sure if there are any other sources. Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In the MTV source, I don't see anything along the lines of "multifaceted and employ a big budget"--I just see that there were supposed to be seven or eight other people in the video--could you rephrase it?
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would not include an external link in the middle of an article (Wannabuyavan.com), especially because the website appears to now be defunct. Just typing it should suffice. Especially because of this fact, it probably shouldn't even appear in an external links section, as who knows what could happen with that web address in the future, you know? :)
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If its just the five tracks that leaked online, put "they leaked online." If its the whole album, clarify that further.
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In order to take the critical reaction subsection away from just a "list of quotes", could you put some aspects of the album that reviewers generally praised?
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Are there any more mixed or negative reviews from reliable sources you can find?
 * I think the balance is fine as it is - consider the nearly 12:1 ratio of positive to mixed reviews sourced from Metacritic. In the article prose, there are 8 positive reviews to 1 mixed review. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 17:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I would make sure that these critics' lists for the album go from highest-ranking to lowest-ranking--it makes it more organized. But for specific songs, you can definitely keep them at the bottom.
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think "austere" is the right adjective, looking at the picture and reading the text. You can find another word, but that one doesn't do it for me?
 * ✅ Aria1561 (talk) 21:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Everything else looks good! Just a few more comments to respond to and then I can pass! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 02:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)  Everything looks great now! I can definitely pass. Good work, both of you! :) Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for reviewing this. :) Aria1561 (talk) 00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): 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: