Talk:Mine Is Yours/GA1

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Will put up a review of this soon. AIRcorn (talk) 20:45, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Review

 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Good. A few comments below. Happy to discuss any points further.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments below.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * Source spot check fine. Earwigs tool 23% highest, but used as a quote or for song names so not a concern. Same with others above 20. Quote use is in line with accepted norms.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Can't think of anythin missing
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Non free use rational provide for cover is acceptable. Other images appear to have correct license. Wouldn't mind some more justification for Allen and even Styles in the text though. Are there no suitable ones at C:Category:Cold War Kids?
 * It would be awkward trying to fit a band photo in the article without it being too crammed for space. DepressedPer (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary. I was just wondering why it features other individuals photos so prominently, but there were no band photos. AIRcorn (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be awkward trying to fit a band photo in the article without it being too crammed for space. DepressedPer (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not necessary. I was just wondering why it features other individuals photos so prominently, but there were no band photos. AIRcorn (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * A few comments below.

Comments

 * Following the mixed reception of 2008's Loyalty to Loyalty and the release of 2010's Behave Yourself, the band sought to work on new material that spanned the course of three months in Nashville and California after two years of touring. Run on sentence. How does mixed reception lead to work spanning three months?
 * the album marks as a departure from Grammar
 * Mine Is Yours was the band's last album to feature lead guitarist Jonnie Russell, who left for personal reasons. Not in the body (or cited)
 * To promote the record, the band spent the next two years touring across North America and Europe through appearances at music festivals and talk shows Would making be better than through?
 * Instead of writing songs and recording them quickly, they spent two months together on the material they worked on. Awkward sentence.
 * Lead singer Nathan Willett found this new experience to be "[It was] much more spread out, [it was] much more broken down and built up again." Is the first [It was] needed. Breaks the flow.
 * The band found the approach different than in their previous effort, in which the record felt rushed and Willett said that, run on sentence
 * You don't mention the albums name in background. How did they come up with the name?
 * Sorry, I couldn't find anything for the reason why the band came up with the album title. DepressedPer (talk) 00:54 18 May 2018, (UTC)


 * I am not overly familiar with the band myself. Is it possible to include an introductory sentence about them here. At the least wikilink Cold War Kid at the start of the section. Maybe some info on how many previous albums, musical style. Not much, a well written sentence would work, just enough to give me a rough overview of them. Previous albums are mentioned in the lead, but should also be in the body anyway.
 * Many critics... Not a fan of using many supported by a few examples which do make the comment. Unless the sources themselves say "many' it is essentially original research.
 * with criticisms ranging from songwriting to vocal performance. These are not criticisms.
 * Aside from Stipe, other influences that Willett was inspired by were Woody Allen... Feel this needs more. How did film makers influence a musician? Cassavetes is mentioned below, but not the others. Particularly Allen as you use a photo of him suggestion his influence was important.
 * Music and lyrics - I think the use of quotes should be limited in this section. It is much more readable with out them. This is not bad, but there are a few that I think don't add much. Unless they are powerful or you are worried it might be misinterpreted I would rather read your words. Examples of superfluous or extended ones are.
 * a gently lilting ballad coalesce[s] into one of Willett’s most fiery performances, buoyed by rolling drums and a bridge that frankly explodes.
 * Sensitive kid, start acting like a grown-up
 * plowing over a relationship to start over again on fresh soil
 * I have read and reviewed music articles that almost solely consist of quotes and this is a long way from that. With some of the quotes (not just the ones I have listed) I am not sure who is saying them. Some just use "was described" while others don't even do that. If it was me I would only use them for words and short part sentences where I want to say the words exactly as the reviewer does, otherwise I don't see a problem paraphrasing. As far as good status goes, it is generally accepted that the use of quotes is more than I would personally use. So I don't expect you to remove them all, but if you can reduce them that would be great.


 * A music video was created for the single and premiered on January 2011 Confusing. Maybe re word (or just add "it"?)?
 * They performed a medley of "Louder Than Ever.... Long confusing sentences. What is DeLuna Fest and how does it relate to Kimmel and Carson Daley? Too many clauses, I would split it up.
 * On November 30, the band announced Did they do it? Same with the December 1 announced. Once we have confirmed they have done it we no longer need to use announced. If they didn't do it then why?
 * Critical reception I have the same qualms about quotes here as I do at Music and Lyrics. There is more scope for quotations as we are directly representing views of critics, but as far as readability goes it is better not to have too many. Often it becomes a sea of Foo said "long qoute", while Fobar said "another long quote". See WP:RECEPTION for more details. Again this is not bad and actually better than many other good articles on similar topics. I worked out that just over 40% is direct quotes (not including the first paragraph). Again I prefer reading your words rather than the quotes. Organisation seems good, most follow some sort of theme. Overall I am happy enough with the level of quoting, but would encourage you to cut some if possible. If you have to have a full stop in a quote it is probably too big; it makes it hard to read too. For any like that a quote box might work better. Not a requirement to pass though.
 * Some of the introduction to the quotes is jarring. For example finding praise in Nathan Willett's songwriting to be "deep into fractured relationships for inspiration
 * Rudy Klapp.... Loved this paragraph. This is one of the best uses of quotes to enhance a reception section. The next one is pretty good too.
 * The most critical about the album was NME's Katherine Rodgers... Most critical what? Maybe a rearrangement needed.
 * A lot of comparisons to Loyalty to Loyalty in Commercial performance. Is this because it was their previous album or because it was their most successful?


 * How are we going on this? AIRcorn (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I already got through everything listed here in the past few months. DepressedPer 04:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks. Passing. AIRcorn (talk) 18:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)