Talk:Everything I Didn't Say/GA1

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

Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GAN may take a few days to prepare. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some edit comments to get things started:

(1) Lead section. Could you add some of the definite articles to the text: "the release of singles", to "the release of the singles"; also "in countdown", to "in the countdown...".

(2) Background section. Little too much by way of quoting here; you already have a blockquote to end this section, and your first paragraph has a 3 sentence quote from the artist which would normally require a blockquote format. Try to trim some the quotes, possibly put into narrative format.

(3) Music and Lyrics section. The first sentence of this section is a fairly broad description, and it might look better moved to the first sentence of the Background section above it.

(4) Also in the Music and lyrics section, some of this material looks like it might belong to a production section, rather than only Music and lyrics. I'm interested to see if this section would be better as a Production section followed by a Music and Lyrics section.

(5) Title, artwork section. This section is a bit on the short side and might look better merged into the section directly below it for Promotion, as Promotion's first subsection. Pull the Release date sentence up to the very top of the newly merged sections. Then follow with a section to title and artwork (Cover design?), and then the Marketing and promotion subsections which you already have. This will give you a more refined TOC which should enhance the presentation of the article's material.

(6) Live performaces subsection does not need 'promotion' stated in the section title. Just call it Live performances.

(7) Tours section looks useful as is at present.

(8) Reception section also looks good. It would be nice if you could find something about the sales number and how profitable it was in dollars and cents. Are there any RS for these financial numbers?

(9) Track listing and Personnel sections look pretty good.

(10) Charts and Release history seem to be saying that there is only UK and USA information available; make sure both are covered. Also, you seem to be stating interentially that there was no foreign markets looking at this release with any seriousness. Is that true? (You do use some German sources in your citations; also there is an Interwiki version in Italian which have have some Italian release data...).

Let me know if anythings needs further information or clarification. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, here's some responses and changes >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 22:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That looks like a start on some of these issues. The TOC still looks a little atypical to me. For example, the GA for the Bowie album Ziggy Stardust uses something like:

1	Background

2	Recording and production

3	Concept and themes [...]

Then if I look at the U2 album for Achtung Baby, I see another TOC for an FAC article which again looks more typical:

1	Background

2	Recording and production

3	Composition

3.1	Music

3.2	Lyrics

4	Packaging and title

5	Release and promotion [...]

Either one of these approaches is fine, and choose the one you feel most comfotable with; however I think it would be good to stick with the starting format for a Background section separate from a Recording and production section which comes after it. Try to follow one the peer reviewed articles I just quoted from more closely. It looks like this type of TOC would enhance your article. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , even though this is stylistic (there are tonnes of GA/FA albums with differing section styles), I have tried to take on board what you have said, balancing what information there is available versus the two examples you gave. Let me know what you think. >> Lil-unique1  (  talk  ) — 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Concluding Comments

Whichever way you read 'stylistic' in your statement above, you now have a much improved TOC for the further development of this article. The Background and history section is a good way to organize the presentation of the rest of the TOC and the rest of the article. Good images and good references throughout and this article is now promoted to GA-level. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)