Talk:Maxwell's Urban Hang Suite/GA2

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article and have done some copy editing of some grammatical and wording problems. When a word is used repetitiously, I tried to reword for more variety in phrasing. Feel free to change any mistakes I have made.

Overall, this is a well written, well researched, well referenced article that gives wonderful insight into the topic. I only have a few issues, although I have not yet been through the entire article.
 * There is a slight POV tone to the article. Rather than being objective, using terms like he was "hailed" or other overly laudatory words give the feeling this article is not quite objective.
 * There is a repetitiousness of wording. In some paragraphs, for example, the wording going from "one critic says" to "another critic says" etc. which is not interesting writing.
 * From the article: Jon Caramanica of The New York Times views the album's influence as broader than neo soul; he stated "The unfortunate genre of urban adult contemporary and some recent movements in smooth jazz — anything with a decidedly silky alto sax, really — can trace their genealogies directly to him." - This seems to me to be a negative comment. But it is mixed in with all praise, and int import of the meaning is not commented on.

I may add more. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited it for the first two concerns, but I don't get the third; the critic is saying that Maxwell's sound, which he said is best exemplified on the album, influenced the two musical genres. Dan56 (talk) 00:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. When the critic says "The unfortunate genre of urban adult contemporary and some recent movements in smooth jazz ...", he is saying that a genre that he considers "unfortunate" i.e. he thinks it and a related genre never should have come into existence, were influenced to come into existence by this album.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 20:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed the statement. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I think that there are too many quotations in the article from critics. "Musical style", "Lyrical themes" and "Content" have so many quotations from critcs and writers that these sections should be part of the "Critical response" section. The over use of quotes from critics and writers continues in the "Breakthrough" and "Neo soul" sections. The article becomes a maze of laudatory quotations that reading it all gets very repetitious after a while. I think the article could be shorted with the effect that the writing would be clearer and more interesting.
 * Please see WP:MOS. You are overlinking common words (love, sex, marriage, monogamy, spirituality in the lead alone). Also, once you have wikilinked a word, balladry, sex symbol etc. (which probably don't need to be wikilinked to begin with) you should not wikilink them again in the article, unless it is a very abstruse term and the first wikilink occurred much earlier in the article so that the reader is likely to have forgotten. The goal is to wikilink judiciously so that you do not have that "sea of blue" that is so distracting to the reader.


 * I fixed it up a bit; I removed some of the quotes and put some in the critical response section. Also removed some links. Dan56 (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I reduced quotes/moved them to critical response and removed wikilinks. By the way, are "instrumental" and "misogynistic" common words? Dan56 (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * I think both of those are common words. Certainly "instrumental" is. If his lyrics are "misogynistic", should you not address that more fully, giving examples?
 * You have done good by cutting down the article and removing some quotes. It still is a very long article.
 * It still has a lot of quotes that do not add much, e.g. One writer wrote of Urban Hang Suite's tempo and composition, writing that it "starts as a dance party" and "slowly descends in tempo, song by song".
 * Do you mean that it starts at a fast tempo and slows down? Why does this need to be quoted. The effect of all the quotes is to give the impression that you are afraid to make statements and only feel comfortable using the words of others.
 * So many quotes by critics but none of his lyrics.

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 13:41, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed more quotes; what more should i remove? Dan56 (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You have definitely improved it. Let me read it again. I am concerned that it is POV. That is, that it is overly laudatory and not neutral. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 19:09, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * The lead is too positive and does not mention that not all reviews were laudatory. You removed from the body of the article the negative review from the New York Times than said that this album contributed to an unfortunate tendency to rather smooth music in this genre - can't remember the exact quote. You must give a balanced, objective presentation and this article is too POV. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 03:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I edited the lead, the NY Times article wasnt negative or a review, and i dont understand what part is POV; in the critical response? Dan56 (talk) 04:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times quote that you removed said basically that this album bordered on "easy listening" blank, silky, over processed music. You say "general positive review" which is the standard phrase used in these articles. But you do not provide any real critical reviews. The whole article is very adoring. Being a sex symbol or whatever is very trite stuff and hardly reflective of quality music. What about the misogyny, etc.  Perhaps I will ask for a second opinion on this. Would that be OK? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is the article. It talked about how the smooth jazz and urban contemporary genres were influenced by Maxwell and the album's sound. Dan56 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I am satisified. Thanks for being so cooperative and responsive. I think that article is good now. &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 12:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Final GA review (see here for criteria)

A good job. Congratulations!
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): Covers major aspects b (focused): Remains focused on article topic
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias: Neutral
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 12:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)