Talk:Felt Mountain/GA1

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

Hi, I will do the GA review for this article. As it is my first review I will need some time, but I will try to have it up soon. Hekerui (talk) 12:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This is good work, but I have suggestions for improvement:

Infobox


 * Genre should be taken from a source, such as the style analysis from the Allmusic review.

Lead


 * Reference 1: The source, the record label, might not be a reliable due to the publisher commenting on the sound of the record, and the publisher may use "cinematic soundscape" to create a positive impression. This is different to when the website is used to confirm a publishing date etc. Perhaps use the Guardian source, which refers to "cinematic scope".
 * The influence of 1960s pop (strings etc.) was mentioned alongside cabaret, folk, and electronica in the Allmusic review and should be added where it is referenced (also under Background). The orchestra/pop reference can be found in the Guardian article as well.
 * The reception explanations should be changed to reflect how they are not unanimous. Consider replacing "well received" with "generally well received" and later "positive reviews" with "mostly positive reviews".
 * The reference for the Mercury Prize shortlist should be replaced with a more reliable source, for example this one.

Background


 * Background could perhaps be renamed Recording and production as in Supernature.
 * Reference 7 should link directly to the source, not a mirror. The same is true for Reference 8.
 * "who often found herself alone" should be shortened to something clearer, such as "who was often alone".
 * "not accustomed" should be changed to "unaccustomed"
 * Reference 7 doesn't say that "Gregory composed the majority of the music", but this source states they composed the music together
 * "while Gregory" should be changed to "and Gregory".

Critical response


 * "... but criticized it because the ..." suggest criticism is necessarily negative, which is not correct - it should be reworded, for example as "... but found that the ...".
 * Flak magazine mention could state disapproval of "Pilots".
 * the NME review should be included.
 * Reference 11 should like directly to the source.

Chart performance and sales


 * the section should be made into a single paragraph
 * Reference 13 states the sales number of 914 were the entire sales in 2000 in the UK, not just the first week, and the sales number 177,096 includes only sales up to August 2005.
 * Reference 14 and 16 should have "eMedia Jungen" as publisher, Reference 15 "PhonoNet" and Reference 17 "Hung Medien" to show they are not just blogs.
 * the U.S. sales number in Reference 18 should reflect that this is the sales number up to August 2006.

Songs


 * "Compared to Shirley Bassey, the song was released as the album's lead single." Was Goldfrapp compared to Shirley Bassey or their respective records? The source suggests their records were compared. This should be cleared up.
 * "It is followed by the third single ..." can be shortened.
 * the references don't indicate that the ballads were well-received, but that "Deer Stop" has her voice very processed and is more traditional; in the Yahoo! Music source Goldfrapp states the inspiration for the title track can't totally be put into words.
 * Reference 21 should be replaced by an original source, such as this one - I can't find the original that is mentioned there.

Track Listing


 * The songs lengths vary from the ones provided by Allmusic, it should be explained where they come from.

Charts


 * Reference 26 should also have "Hung Medien" as publisher.

References


 * Reference 20 could use "Yahoo! Music" as publisher instead of general "Yahoo!".


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): 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, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think the article can pass when the issues I raised are addressed. Hekerui (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I think the article can pass when the issues I raised are addressed. Hekerui (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the article can pass when the issues I raised are addressed. Hekerui (talk) 18:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I have fixed everything. Thanks for all your suggestions. -- Underneath-it-All (talk) 00:35, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked it over once more, I realize the sales figure years refer to the album releases, so indeed no change was needed. Everything looks good, I'm going to pass the article to GA status. Very nice work! Hekerui (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)