Talk:Justified (album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: HĐ (talk · contribs) 15:53, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Lead
 * during the hiatus of the singer's band 'N Sync ---> provide time for this
 * Why is a need to provide the time of hiatus? It was released in 2002, their last release was in 2001. It is a fluff. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

(UTC)
 * You have to clarify it &mdash; Simon (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done.  Et 3  rnal  20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Primarily an R&B album, Justified also contains influences of dance-pop, funk and soul music ---> According to the infobox it says "R&B, pop and dance-pop", however this is "R&B with influences from dance-pop"?
 * Fixed. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * As of 2008, the album has sold over seven million copies worldwide. ---> I'd prefer past perfect tense rather than present perfect tense
 * That is a FA preferable prose. — Tomíca (T2ME) 16:41, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Background
 * he wanted to transition ---> "transition" is a noun, replace it with a verb
 * to having a more mature image as an R&B performer ---> remove "having"
 * while, rapper P. Diddy ---> remove the comma
 * Done all.  Et 3  rnal  20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Recording
 * No issue


 * Composition
 * funk influenced song consisted ---> consists
 * Similar to the previous song, the eleventh track of the album has racy lyrics ---> What is the eleventh track?


 * Singles
 * "Señorita" is the Justified's fourth single ---> remove that "the"


 * Promotion
 * I thought that the Justified World Tour happened before the Justified and Stripped Tour?
 * The tour grossed approximately $45 million. ---> Actually it only grossed 30,261,670 (see Justified and Stripped Tour)


 * Critical reception
 * Allmusic should be AllMusic

More comments to follow. Sorry for the delay because of my busy work at school. &mdash; Simon (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC) 1) unlink rap duo in lead
 * Quick comment
 * Why?
 * rap duo is not relevant to this article, Clipse is.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2013
 * unlinked, even though Clipse are a rap duo, so it bares some relevance.

2) Both Timberlake's and Aguilera's managers suggested to both singers to go on a conjoint tour.→First "both" is extra 3) For the tour, Timberlake would perform with eight dancers, a 14-piece band which includes→performed and included (past tense) 4) concluded on June 19, 2004 in Brisbane, Australia.→ended or finished
 * 'Concluded' is just a synonym of those words. Same meaning.

5) Robert Christgau should be placed third in the box→C, not R
 * Template:Album ratings doesn't state Robert Christgau as exempt from this alphabetical order.
 * Music critics are ranked by their surname. Look at other GAs.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's about internal consistency, not external. Template:Album ratings doesn't state it. Unless another page says so, I don't see any reason to change it.
 * Ah, here it is. Second table, R.C. is ahead of Q. Per alphabet, Q→R, which means they've ranked it per C.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 05:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, surprised I didn't notice that. Cheers.

6) link Stephen Thomas Erlewine, Rolling Stone and Slant Magazine; unlink normalized and average (common words and not relevant to the article)
 * Linked Stephen Thomas Erlewine, not the others, as that's WP:OVERLINK. Kept normalized but unlinked average.

7) Internationally, Justified received a similar response→had similar success
 * Again, same thing, just a different derivative.

Good luck getting it promoted.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:53, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done everything minus the ones I've replied to .  Et 3  rnal  15:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Consider my notes done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Query
What's the current status of this review? The last reviewer comments here are almost two weeks old, and I don't see any sign that they've been addressed yet. Is the review done, or is this waiting on more review comments as well as more action from the nominator? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm waiting for the review comments to be finished so I and Tomica can wrap this all up. Not much point in addressing issues when the review's not finished. Also, most of the issues have indeed been addressed.  Et 3  rnal  23:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Since the article doesn't have any major issues, I'll take the freedom to close the review as passed. I believe the main reviewer is busy at the moment and new comments won't be coming any time soon. Congratulations.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit stunned that you would pass this when Et3rnal said "most of the issues" were addressed, not all of them. Could you not have asked for the last of them to be addressed and waited until they had been accomplished and you'd checked them to pass it? Also, did anyone do a close paraphrasing check? I'd be happier if Background section's "The Neptunes were working on multiple tracks" and the source's "the Neptunes are working on multiple tracks" were not virtually identical, and if the prose in that section didn't have occasional grammatical errors that frankly don't belong in a GA. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you feel that the article doesn't meet GA, then put it up for reassessment.  Et 3  rnal  22:05, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * If you see the article's history, I've addressed all of the remaining issues, except for the "consists" tweak, which I consider inappropriate.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:13, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Post Scriptum - I did took a final look at the prose and corrected two minor errors (eleventh→twelfth and Track listings→Track listing). The rest is satisfying according to me.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Et3rnal, my point is that it shouldn't even be an issue, and Вик Ретлхед was clearly premature in pushing the button at a point when review issues were unaddressed and it did not meet GA. It's much closer now, and I don't have the time nor the desire to pursue a reassessment unless pushed to it. However, the second paragraph of "Background" is not up to the prose standard expected ("him" is misused, and the sentences are not well constructed), and I'm hoping that one of you will take the time to improve it so it is. The failure to change the identified close paraphrasing is, I must confess, not encouraging, given how easily it could have been addressed. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the constructive comments. Did some minor corrections in the second paragraph, if you have some other remarks, be my guest.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * So sorry for my delay, as I want to thank Вик Ретлхед for reviewing this. So much sorry. &mdash; Simon (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2013 (UTC)