Talk:Loud (Rihanna album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: CallMe Nathan   &bull;  Talk2Me   17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'l be starting later today. Its a nice sized and very informative article, nice job guys. I'll tell you though, there is still a lot of work to be done, especially the references, so be handy so you can get all these things done in a week.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:11, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nathan for accepting this. Wou I'm ready for the challenge, I hope Calvin is too :P. Tomica1111  (talk)  17:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Nathan. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  18:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem guys :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

References 2

 * Round Two Sources - Still a lot of work Calvin.
 * Inconsistency in dates
 * ✅ Tomica1111  (talk)  11:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The first three are already problematic
 * ✅ Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!
 * Why are #12 and #13 different?
 * ✅ I don't get why (Devin Lazerine) is in brackets for the first but no the second though. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!
 * Simple. One is accidentally "{{Cite news" isntead of "{{Cite web". Cite news shows the publisher in parenthesis, while the other doesn't. As I said, many are wrong in this sense, as only printed newspapers use this template.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Why are 21 and 22 cite news and italicised? and why both linked?
 * ✅ Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!
 * 35 should be italics "its a mag!", 36 should use cite news, 39 is poorly formatted
 * 35: {{not done}} Musicnotes is a magazine?. 36: ✅. 39: ✅ Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Calv, made an error in numbers. #36 should be cite web and italics. #35 could be better.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 45 has wrong publisher and should be in italics
 * Who is the publisher then? Because it says that Independent Print Limited is the publisher on the The Independent article here Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}
 * Tribune Company-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * From 177 and on, they are even worse. As I said, there is still much to do. Please ask if you don't know, but there is a formula, so just apply it to every source.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:25, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but what's with the whole formula thing? :) Tomica1111  (talk)  17:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty simple. First, know what source you are citing (newspaper, online, magazine etc.) and choose "Cite news" or "Cite web", the fill in the url, the title (All major words begin with capital letters. If title is all caps then don't place it that way), is there is a known author, do last=, first=, then the work= (which automatically italicizes the work, so if you don't want it, then like the opposite place little lines on each side to have the effect, Allmusic), fill in publisher, date if known, accessdate. That's about it :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   17:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Familiar to me. But, however thanks for explaining. Tomica1111  (talk)  17:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I do have a set formula I use, but obviously people are still allowed to edit this article and they have different ways of formatting. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  19:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand, I had that issue as well, but you'll find that once the are all perfect, you'll effectively be able to monitor small changes and either fix them or revert.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:10, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

{{done}} ... I re-formatted all references from 177 until the end. Nathan you should check them, and let us continue with the review. THIS REFS are so BORING :( ! Tomica1111  (talk)  11:50, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand the bore of it Tommy, and I will, but you guys still have not completely fixed them. There are so many inconsistencies. In 221 and 222, Billboard does not appear in italics. Why does 35 use "Cite News"? #45 is still not fixed. 49 and 50 are wrong. Tommy, I suggest you and Calvin split the references, and do them right! Instead of doing some each, and getting confused and over-looking many of them, you do 1-135 and he do the rest.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   11:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deal, I will do it until 135. Tomica1111  (talk)  13:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Honestly Tommy, if there are ones that you don't know, I'll do them. List me the ones when your done, or I'll try and tighten them after you've finished :)-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   13:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure Nath, if there are some "unknown to me", I will tell when I'm done ;) ! Tomica1111  (talk)  14:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So Tomica, you have done references 177 to the end, and are doing 1-135? If so, I will do 136-176 if you want. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  16:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you can do them. Also you can check from 177 till the end, as maybe there is some mistakes. Tomica1111  (talk)  16:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I reworked all the references from 1 - 135. I only found trouble with the HipHopDX publisher. There are two - Cheri Media Group & Complex Media Network and I don't know which is the real. Do you know Nath? Tomica1111 (talk)  11:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC) I re-formatted all the references, and I'm at least 90% sure, that they are fine. You can check them Nath, and I hope we will continue the review. Greetings Tomica1111  (talk)  10:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry Tomica I've had a lot on my mind. Where are you up to re-formatting? I'll do the rest. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  12:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem Calv, I have done for you :). I'm done. Now we just wait for Nathan to continue with the review. Tomica1111  (talk)  13:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  13:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Guys, you are making this really difficult. There are loads of inconsistencies with the references. Some are still with Cite web or News when it should be the opposite. Some are linked several times (we link first time only). Some are un-reliable sources (Pop Crush, Sohh!?). Before we get to anything else, and I'm sure this will annoy the hell out of you, I need good references. You're at about 75% of the way now.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   10:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll sort them out Nathan. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  13:21, 14 August 2011 (UTC) But i will probs do it tomorrow because i am seriously hungover at the moment!  Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}
 * Haha "The Hangover Part III". Don't worry I know that feeling ! :) Tomica1111  (talk)  18:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, and I'm high at the moment :P-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, you guys are getting there. Things to point out. There are inconsistencies with dates (2011-08-19; August 19, 2011). Choose one and stick to it. Why are the publishers in 1 and 2 in parenthesis? Why is 4? Why is 30? 31? 36 should be (ts a newspaper!!!!!!). #45 is still wrong publisher (I told you its Tribune Company) and should be in parenthesis. I'm going to fix the 15 that are wrong. Pay attention please :P-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   19:43, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I know how to reference them and have a particular style of formatting I stick to, I just can't see which ones need changing. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  19:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Note - This is going to wind up resulting in a fail guys. We are almost three weeks in, and there are still so many ref issues, let alone prose and everything else. I mean, there are so many inconsistencies, some in capitals and others not, some missing accessdates, and loads of unreliable sources #s 91, 178, 180, 208, and so many poorly formatted ones. Unless there is going to be some God-send change, this will result in a fail before Friday.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   23:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Have done quite a lot. I only have 3 sections left. Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  22:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ready when you are :) Calvin  &bull; {{sup| Na Na Na C'mon! }}  21:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Lead

 * The lead needs some work, here are my main concerns:
 * I think you should switch content from the first and second. Try and keep each paragraph focused. One will discuss background and who was involved with the project, while the second on its musical styles, genre choices etc.
 * Be careful with mixing tenses: "Loud focused more on up-tempo and pop related genres, ranging from dance-pop to Electro-R&B, and marks her return to her dancehall roots" -> focused, marks
 * The third paragraph needs to not focus just on the US and UK. Try and seem less biased and shimmy it down and add info for other countries as well
 * "Upon its release, Loud received positive reviews from most music critics, who complimented its upbeat material and Rihanna's performance." -> this sentence doesn't fly. We need like two solid sentences of actual commentary on why the album was praised (maybe strong infusion of several musical styles and Rihanna's improving vocals) while criticism for etc.
 * The last sentence is far to long and repetitious. Mention the first three singles regarding their chart performance, then go into the tour. Don't list chart position for seven singles
 * You mentioned she earned 10 #1s faster than Mariah Carey. This is not found in the body of the article
 * Done all Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. Nice switch for the first two paragraphs. he third paragraph is way too detailed. You don't need to give us quotations on critical analysis, write it in your own words, but not vague things like "Rihanna's performance"
 * Loud was a commercial success internationally -> this is puffery. We let the sources and facts do the talking. The album achieved high peaks on charts in etc is fine
 * That Grammy fact is kind of just thrown out there. Is that the only Grammy? Only major award? I suggest (depending on what it won, I'm not really sure) a sentence that it won several awards throughout the music industry, or not to mention it at all
 * The last bit "less successful in" is just trivial and extra-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Media

 * You don't have great descriptions for the samples. A line regarding its lyrics does not tell me why the sample should stay. I take it you no what I mean
 * I think the samples are misplaced. One of them would be better by a section that actually discusses the song's lyrics and composition
 * Done all Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  20:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Content

 * The "singles" section still needs trimming. Its very bulky and hard to navigate
 * You don't have to have random facts regarding the music video just thrown into the mix. Note that on TEOM, only the first two are mentioned because they are two parts of one video. the rest are not mentioned. Try maybe discussing the video for "S&M" and "Man Down" due to their controversy and remove the random facts of the directors for the others
 * Be careful with "some noted" and having only one critic referenced
 * There you go for now.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed all instances of talking about a Music video. But considering there was not prose about the S&M and Man Down vids with regard to controversy, I think that if I talk about them, then it would kinda undo the shortening I just did by removing the Music video lines from the other singles, so I'm just going to leave them all clear of any Music video prose. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  21:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You missed a few above for the lead - now, there are a lot of unnecessary facts regarding the live performance sections. Additionally, the singles still needs trimming. Before we get to a major c/e, you need to crop a lot of unneeded info. All the descriptions on Rhanna's wardrobe etc should be removed; they are kept for their respective song articles. And the singles section still needs to be cropped by like 30%. Look at the work I did on Mimi for the FAC so far, there is really a lot of unnecessary information here.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   09:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I trimmed the live performances section, I guess it's ok now. Tomica1111  (talk)  11:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah I can still see things that could be removed. I am going out now, will continue tomorrow. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Ref 31, 56 and 128 are the same. And why isn't "Skin" (the best song) mentioned anywhere in the article? Surely some reviewer must have mentioned something about its instrumentation or what it's about? Pancake (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your ref comments are fine, but just because that song is your favorite does not mean its mention is required. It has almost no coverage.--18:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you seriously think I wanted it to be included just because it's my favorite? lol That was not the point. Pancake (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nathan. That is how it read. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry if it came out that way. I was just observing. I actually wanted to read what critics said of the song, but I couldn't fin anything on the page, so I had to ask. Pancake (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read a lot of Loud reviews (as part of promoting Only Girl, S&M, Raining Men, Man Down, California King Bed and LTWYL to GA) and I don't recall seeing much, if any, commentary about Skin or Fading. I think I saw one, which was very brief. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As I said above. You missed a few points on the lead. Aaron, I recommend you take this article to the GOCE. There are really far to many prose issues to point out. I'll wait, but I suggest you submit now. The singles section still needs trimming. They have their own articles for a reason.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very skeptical about using that because when I used it for S&M, the guy completely fucked up the article and made it impossible for it to be passed by FAC, I had to undo the vast majority of his work. Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  17:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've used them three times and they have helped me greatly. Put in the request and I'll ask if Diana could do yours; she's the best at it.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   18:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done Calvin  &bull; Na Na Na C'mon!  18:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Fail - I have waited a month for the clearly under-prepared article. This was delivered with references in shambles, and with poor prose and structure. After waiting this long, I have decided that I will not bend anymore for editors that are not deserving or appreciative of it. The article is still not GA-worthy, and I am not waiting any longer.-- CallMe Nathan  &bull;  Talk2Me   01:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Ktlynch A few things:

1. There should not be a list of credits and production staff in the article. This is an encyclopaedia. 2. The writing is constipated. I feel the word count could be safely cut by one-third. 3. Some of the sources are definitely not WP:RS, I saw one from amazon!!! 4. There is good real world perspective and coverage of different facets of the disc. Best,--Ktlynch (talk) 09:34, 7 September 2011 (UTC)