Talk:Lazer Beam/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lazer Beam/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


 * First note: The references have the same problems that I helped you out with at Show Your Hand. They need to be moved so that they come after punctuation. Done Cavie78 (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Still a few issues where there is a space between the ref and the punctuation. Naerii 13:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise - done now Cavie78 (talk) 14:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * From the lead: "first and only" could probably just be "only" as that means the same thing Done Cavie78 (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The fourth paragraph in the lead is a run-on sentence, consider breaking it into two (or more) sentences. Split into two sentences Cavie78 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "According to guitarist Huw Bunford the song is "about making your own reality"" That doesn't really belong in "origins", rather a "lyrics" or "meaning" section.
 * Added a 'meaning' section. It's quite short but there's not a lot out there to work with! Cavie78 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right. Maybe you should put it back. Also there's some information on recording in Love Kraft that may be relevant to this article.  naerii  18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "as a looping bass part bass line" - maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't get what this means. Looping bass part bass?
 * It loops, as in it plays the same thing through the entire song. There's a page for 'Music loop' but this deals specifically with samples in electronic music so I can't link to it. Do you still think I need to clarify? Cavie78 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well "looping bass part bass line" makes it sound like its part bass part something else? Does "looping bass line" mean the same thing? Naerii 14:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You see what I did there is I didn't read what you'd written properly! Have changed now!!! Cavie78 (talk) 15:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's that good an idea to be mixing the praise of the critics in between descriptions of the sound in the Musical Structure part. 'Delicous honey-coated' etc. It doesn't really contribute to understanding the style of the music and makes it sound a bit fanzy. OK, have left in the reference to "bizarre sound effects" but removed the other two Cavie78 (talk)
 * The stuff you removed could probably be put in "critical response". Naerii 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about this - the "Delicous honey-coated..." quote in particular doesn't really add much to the critical section in my opinion Cavie78 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hrrm, suppose so! My main concern is that the section seems a little stubby. Btw, you should probably mention how it did in the charts somewhere within the main body of the article (the lead is supposed to summarise content that appears in the main body of the article).  naerii  18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point about the chart placing, have added a 'singles chart' section. I know what you mean about the critical reviews section but I'm trying to summarise the thoughts of lots of different reviewers rather than just paraphrase all the reviews I can find. Cool (song) has a sectino that's similarly short and that's a featured article.
 * Fair enough, looks good.  naerii  10:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "before we reach the outro" - No 'we', perhaps just 'before the outro'. Done Cavie78 (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There are similar "we"'s in the video section Done Cavie78 (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Aurelien video section seems entirely too long
 * See what you mean but this video is very different from the other one in that there's a definite story running through it. I think it's better that all the detail's there rather than just a "The video shows a 1980's style video game being played by the band" type thing. Cavie78 (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree that it does need some details, but I suppose we differ in our stance on how much detail it needs ;) I still think it could stand to be trimmed and condensed a little.  naerii  18:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting this on hold to give you some time to address my concerns (whether to fix them or rebut them). I'll come back to review it in a week. Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions or would like me to look at the article again before that date. Naerii 11:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, what does "flashing at 'City' or 'Stage 01'.[7]" mean? Which does it flash at?  naerii  18:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I'm going to pass this as a GA now. I think the shortness is excused by the lack of sources that discuss this song in detail. Good work! If you find the time please consider helping another editor by reviewing an article at good article nominations as the backlog there is dreadful!  naerii  10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)