Talk:Evita (soundtrack)/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You have done a wonderful job with the article! Let me know if you have any questions about my review. Once my comments are addressed, then this should be a quick and easy pass. If possible, could you review my GAN for the article Gagged (Violet Chachki EP)? I know it is a busy time of the year, so I understand if this is not possible. Hope this review helps. Aoba47 (talk) 02:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Grabbing this for a review if that is okay with you. I feel that Madonna does not get quite enough credit for her vocals. She may not be a Mariah Carey or Whitney Houston, but her vocals were great on this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments from Aoba47
 * According to AllMusic, the performers for the first two songs are “Madonna/Andrew Lloyd Webber featuring Antonio Banderas”. The same is true for “Santa Evita”. The iTunes version of the album says “Evita Soundtrack” for all three of these tracks. I believe a performer should be added to these three tracks, but you would probably know best about this.
 * AllMusic got it wrong as they are mainly music by the conducter. I have added John's name there. — I B  [ Poke ] 07:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, AllMusic can have quite a few errors at times so thank you for clearing that up for me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Would it be helpful to add a separate chronology to the infobox for “Madonna soundtrack albums”, like how studio album chronology is done for the article on 4 (Beyoncé album)? It might be helpful, but if you feel that it is unnecessary fluff than you do not have to add it. Just raising a suggestion.
 * I think there was a long discussion few years back against this and to have the chronology as a singular one. I would say the Beyonce article deviated from this suddenly. — I B  [ Poke ] 07:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. While I can see it being helpful, it is also a lot to add to an infobox so I understand. I always see to find the deviations from the rule lol. Aoba47 (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The word “it” should be added between “but” and “is considered” in the lead.
 * I would another verb in front of the information about the new song in the final sentence of the first paragraph of the lead. You have “compose” for the soundtrack, “rework” for the original songs, but nothing for the “You Must Love Me” bit.
 * The phrase “Madonna was benefited” sounds odd to me; I would recommend revising this part or removing it and rephrasing the sentence as a whole without it.
 * I would remove the phrase “That way she was able to” to just have the sentence read as follows: “She taught Madonna how to sing using her diaphragm rather than just her throat, enabling her to project her voice in a more cohesive manner”. I believe the two sentences should be merged as 1) the ideas flow together and 2) “That way” sounds a little too informal.
 * ”In the meantime” sounds somewhat colloquial. Either specify an exact time/date or say what was happening (In the meantime of what exactly? The recording of the album?)
 * Add a comma after “While drafting the script”.
 * You use “recall” twice in a short proximity in the first paragraph of the “Recording sessions” section. Please revise for variety.
 * Unlink all instance of “You Must Love” in the body article after the first usage in the “Background and development” section to avoid overlinking, specifically the beginning of the “Singles” subsection and the end of “Recording sessions”.
 * ”Don’t Cry for Me Argentina” and “Another Suitcase in Another Hall” do not need to be linked in the “Singles” subsection as they were already linked earlier in the body of the article.
 * thanks I have addressed the review and I would be glad to review Violet Chachki's EP. Wow she really sounds great in that! — I B  [ Poke ] 07:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for addressing my comments, and for picking up my article for review. Everything looks great. This is a definite ✅ Aoba47 (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)