Talk:Minecraft – Volume Alpha/GA1

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

Nominator: 22:28, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: 07:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm Ben, and I'll be reviewing your article. Let me know if you have any questions during this process!  Supreme Lord Bagel  (talk to me) 07:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * First off, this article is really well-written and comprehensive! I'll go through a few of my suggestions, but generally this is a very high-quality article. Good job!  Supreme Lord Bagel  (talk to me) 08:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Copyvio marked as unlikely, no edit warring, sources are reliable.

Lead

 * It might not be immediately clear to a first-time reader that the soundtrack was released in two parts, so maybe reword this to . ✅
 * Change to . ✅
 * This wording is a little unclear. This might be a bit better; ✅
 * Change to . ✅
 * Rosenfeld is misspelt as "Rosenfield" at the beginning of the third paragraph. ✅
 * The use of "numerous" (implying many) seems like subjective language. Change this to . ✅
 * Remove "labeled", as it is not necessary in this sentence. ✅

Background

 * Change to  ✅
 * The two uses of "artist" seem a little redundant. Maybe change it to . ✅

Production and composition

 * Remove "the". ✅
 * There are a few grammatical errors in this sentence, and the wording is a little clunky. I would change this to ✅
 * A few grammatical errors here and slightly weird phrasing. Change this to ✅
 * Slightly messy wording again. Change this to ✅
 * This sentence is very lengthy - 49 words, in fact. Split this up into two sentences. ✅

Reception

 * Looking at the Mojo review, I'm not sure what part of it could be described as "indifferent". In contrast, the review seems very positive. Maybe reword this. ✅
 * Add a sentence to the beginning of the reception section, summarising the general critical consensus on the album (i.e. ). ✅
 * In the Sputnikmusic review, the writer doesn't directly state that the album's immersion is the characteristic that made it one of the best albums of the year in his eyes. We might also be able to avoid overquoting here as well if we reword this. Change this to ✅
 * Looking at the sources attached to this claim, I don't see either of these things mentioned. This may constitute original research. ✅
 * A few of the sentences in the third paragraph seem to give undue weight to Rosenfeld's work in general (i.e., rather than specifically Volume Alpha. I would reword these. ✅

Legacy

 * Change two instances of to . ✅
 * This wording sounds a little clunky. Change this to ✅
 * Change "pursuit" to "pursue", as it is used as a verb here. ✅

Criteria

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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check.
 * a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: