Talk:Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Right. Initial impression is that this looks like a pretty solid article, though one in need of a copyedit. The article's information is great, the writing a little confused at times. For example:


 * 1) In contrast to the short tracks of Backspacer, Lightning Bolt features longer songs, with McCready declaring that the musical experiments on the new album intended for "a logical extension of what Backspacer was". could really, really use a rewrite as soon as possible, as it's a little hard to see the connection between the two halves of the sentence, and 'intended for a logical extension' isn't really grammatical (should probably be "were intended to be"?).
 * 2) O'Brien considered the tracklisting to have "a lot of drama" owing to the musicians being united and enjoying themselves. - I'm not sure I quite get the point. "drama" implies difficulty and stress, which "enjoying themselves" is the opposite of.
 * 3) create expectations on their upcoming album - could we simplify this to "create excitement for their upcoming album"?
 * 4) Two countdown clocks were posted on PearlJam.com, the first announcing on July 8 a 24 date two-leg tour in North America that would commence in October. - this is rather convoluted.

Long story short: A strong article with a few bits in need of a polish. Very strong sources. An article that will almost certainly be a GA soon, and could go on to FA. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Adam for taking time to review this. I've had a go at the "countdown clock" part, which now reads "...with two countdown clocks being posted. The first one announced a tour of North America that would commence in October, and the second revealing that the tenth studio album Lightning Bolt would be released on October 15, 2013". Let me know if you think anything needs changing. I'll look at the other parts too. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:21, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that accurate? It originally said th second was posted three days later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:00, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Did what you pointed above - the second I think owes to the intensity of the songs, as in the ref O'Brien states "there wasn't a lot of drama from the [process], just a lot of everyone enjoying." Anything else? igordebraga ≠ 17:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd make sure to give it a full copyedit before a featured article run, but that's the only things that are issues. I'll review the changes. (And if that's what the ref said, I do hope you added a missing "not" in the second one: it currently says there was a lot of dram) [ETA: checked source, clarified a little.] Back after dinner for another look (and, most likely, promotion). Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, looks good! Promoted Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice work everyone! Hopefully this will make FA in Future Days. Chortle.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)