Talk:FM (No Static at All)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Dobbyelf62 (talk · contribs) 19:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

General thoughts
Overall, this is a well written article, but it needs more references to back it up. The details surrounding the recording process and song structure are excellent. However, some sections read a bit like an essay, but that should only require changes in sentence structure. (This has since been fixed)

Lead
Provides the reader with an adequate amount of information. The final paragraph includes two consecutive sentences that start with the word "it".
 * Daniel Case (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * That's a lot better!Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Background and recording
Identify the person who called Steely Dan and asked them to contribute a song for "FM". Perhaps you could also explain why the band was tapped for that role.
 * In his interviews with Breithaupt, Fagen didn't give that information, and I haven't found in any other source. I admit both would be interesting to know, and I would have included it if I'd found it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Composition
Fine, but I'm just wondering if the Breithaupt reference at the end of the lyrics subsection serves as the citation for the second paragraph. That appears to be the case, as you quote him several times throughout. I just want to make sure that there isn't any individual research.
 * If you're able to look at the source, that's indeed the case. He devoted a whole chapter of his book on Aja to a song that's not on the album but contemporaneous with it. Daniel Case (talk) 18:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Other details
While the article is pretty complete, there are some additions you can make to really push it over the edge. Some articles, like 4 Minutes, Ain't it Fun, and Bad all have a Chart performance/Commercial success section that details when the song debuted on the charts, what position it entered at, and when it hit its peak. Dates for certifications are also encouraged if applicable. Also, it would help to have more references. Several of these have over 85 of them. Granted, you might not be able to find as many some of the examples I gave, but there should at least be a few more. It does help that some of your sources have been used several times throughout the article, so at least a large portion of the text can be verified.

For a minor improvement, see if you can insert a related photo or audio file. The articles I linked should provide you with a basic idea of what we're looking for.
 * I really milked the reliable sources I could find online dry; what's there is what we could use. If you're aware of others I haven't tapped, let me know (and we should be careful about assuming quantity of sources = quality of article). I see your point about chart performance; I'll see what I can do about putting a section together although I am currently working on another article with a DYK placement hoped for in a couple of weeks. Daniel Case (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * When do you think you'll be able to come back to this article? I'll be on the search for other references in the meantime.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done with the other article. Just letting you know; the weekend is coming up and my time is often limited on weekends at the moment. Daniel Case (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I have been able to add to your chart performance section with grafs on its Canadian and New Zealand success (although given the nature of the source the latter is somewhat less detailed). I don't think we ought to detail its chart performance in Australia or the UK because it did not make the Top 40 in those markets. If I could get detail on its Spanish chart arc, I would, since it made No. 1 there, but I don't think that's available. Daniel Case (talk) 02:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
 * Rather decent, but there are some short sentences that seem a bit out of place.
 * (Initially checked "no", but changed to "yes" on 4/27/19.
 * I have tried to combine a few of the ones I found. Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
 * Pretty good, although in the reception section, it says that the song "remains a favorite of the band's fans". The sentences that follow only mention the thoughts of music critics. While this is fine to include, I would just be careful with that claim.
 * Taken care of on May 14.


 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
 * Initially checked yes, but I'm going to uncheck it for now. It needs some references. Also, I heavily advise against using Twitter as a source.
 * We're doing better on references now. I'll check the box again.


 * B. Citation of available and reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
 * Some quotes are a bit confusing, such as this one: If [the lyrics] is an argument for adventurousness," Breithaupt writes, "then [the music] is an instance of its own doctrine, with twists and turns aplenty."
 * OK, I can see how the brackets and interruption might be a little too much. Maybe it would be better paraphrased. Let me think about this a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Initially checked no, but changed to yes on April 27, 2019.


 * C. No original research:
 * Some clarification needed. (addressed)
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * Initially checked yes, but would also like to see a Commercial performance section.
 * Fixed as of May 14.
 * Fixed as of May 14.


 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * Just one or two will suffice. Make sure the image/audio is relevant.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * I am very close to promoting the article. Only one or two photos will be necessary.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you accept sound clips, as you have suggested? I really can't find any free images that would fit. And no one would want that more than I would. However, after listening to the song again several times, I think I have about three stretches, none of them more than 30 seconds in length, where text in the music section supports the inclusion of the clip. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should suffice.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Have a look ... and listen! Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There we go. It's a good article! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Would you accept sound clips, as you have suggested? I really can't find any free images that would fit. And no one would want that more than I would. However, after listening to the song again several times, I think I have about three stretches, none of them more than 30 seconds in length, where text in the music section supports the inclusion of the clip. Daniel Case (talk) 17:52, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, that should suffice.Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ Have a look ... and listen! Daniel Case (talk) 04:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There we go. It's a good article! Dobbyelf62 (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2019 (UTC)