Talk:Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness/GA1

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


 * Lead
 * "Produced by Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan, Flood and Alan Moulder," Shouldn't this be "The Smashing Pumpkins" following on from the previous sentence. You've described who Corgan is here, but not Flood or Moulder.
 * Fixed. Also, no need for "The" in this instance. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How come you feel there is no need for "The". I personally disagree but am interested to hear your opinion. Peanut4 (talk) 00:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it's not grammatically correct. The phrasing used in the lead compares to "Yankees shortstop John Smith". In this context "the" is not used. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand that analogy. New York Yankees is the name of the team, not The New York Yankees. The Smashing Pumpkins is the name of the band, not Smashing Pumpkins. Peanut4 (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You refer to the team as "the Yankees" in condensed form. For more appropriate analogy, you don't say "Mick Jagger sang with with The Who singer Roger Daltrey on a few tracks"; you say "Mick Jagger sang with with Who singer Roger Daltrey on a few tracks". Even if "the" is a proper part of the name, you remove "the" in phrases like this. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually think "Mick Jagger sang with with The Who singer Roger Daltrey on a few tracks" makes more grammatical sense than the second option. And as you say you refer to "the Yankees", small t, hence only when "the" is needed for the sentence. If this sentence was "Produced by Yankees frontman Billy Corgan", I would actually prefer "Produced by the Yankees frontman Billy Corgan," since the refers to the frontman, not a frontman. Peanut4 (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, you've helped illustrate why "the" is not included. If "the" were included in the phrase, regardless of capitalization it would be referring to Billy Corgan, because "Smashing Pumpkins frontman" is a description of Corgan. Corgan is an individual, and thus you don't use "the" to refer to him. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure but this may be a difference of Am. Eng. and Br. Eng. This certainly isn't worth a pass / fail discussion over. I'm still convinced that it should be "The Smashing Pumpkins". However, I'll leave that up to any future discussion / direction of the article. Peanut4 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Recording
 * Write the main section independent of the lead, hence use full names once again on the first appearance, e.g. Billy Corgan then Corgan, James Iha then Iha, not Corgan, Iha, etc.
 * Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * ""[T]o me, the biggest offender was the insidious amounts of time that everyone spends waiting for guitar parts to be overdubbed. There were literally weeks where no one had anything to do but sit and wait."" Is "[T]o" correct? It looks a bit odd.
 * Yes, it's correct, since the original source did no capitalize the "T". WesleyDodds (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "The album was going to have 32 songs, but this was cut back to the 28 songs." Was there any reason given for the final total cut back?
 * No, not really. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Release
 * "Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness was released in October 1995. The following week, Mellon Collie debuted at number one on the Billboard 200," The release date only specifies the month, but the next sentence says "The following week" so it doesn't make full sense. I would give the exact release date.
 * Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 00:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A very good read, and everything else looks in place. Might be good to get at least one more image if possible though. I'll put it on hold for the points above. Peanut4 (talk) 23:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 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:

I'm still unconvinced by "Smashing Pumpkins" rather than "The Smashing Pumpkins" but I guess it's better to get more opinion on it anyway. Would also be good to find out why the number of songs was cut down. Overall, it's a very good read though and meets the GA criteria. Peanut4 (talk) 01:09, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I was going to review this, but I see I was beaten to the punch. A few things:
 * I agree with Peanut4 about the "The", except that it follows another instance of "The Smashing Pumpkins" in the previous sentence. I'd recommend replacing "Smashing Pumpkins" with "band" for that reason.
 * "This culminated in a double album release featuring 28 songs, with the five main singles being backed by the remaining 23 songs." I've never heard the term "backed" used in the context of an album, only singles themselves.  The sentence doesn't add anything anyway, so I'd just cut it.
 * I'm one of those people who find "utilize" to be a dead word. Can the first instance be replaced with "incorporates" and the second be dropped altogether?
 * Just certified "nine" times platinum, not "9.8".
 * In the track listing, I'd drop the 12" from "12" Vinyl version". For LPs, it's like saying 4¾" CD.
 * Would be a good idea to add subsections of "Additional personnel" and "Production" in the "Personnel" section.
 * The "References" section is unnecessary. If the reference were a book, and the footnotes section included a number of corresponding citations, that would be different.

Nice job on everything else. —Zeagler (talk) 01:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)