Talk:New Multitudes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Status (talk · contribs) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I will review this article later today. Statυs (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey; I'm sorry I never got around to reviewing it today. I will begin on Wednesday, as tomorrow I have an important meeting to go to. Statυs  (talk) 02:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No disambiguation links
 * 2 access issues, 1 uncategorized redirect and 1 suspicious

Infobox

 * Studio album tribute isn't a type of album. There are studio albums, compilations and EPs.
 * Done


 * No comma before the final name.
 * Not done I use the Oxford comma.


 * Recorded section shouldn't so descriptive. Locations and years are fine enough. "2006, 2009–11... Locations"
 * Done


 * Language is only needed if the album is in any language other than English.
 * Not done  is never a required field.


 * Wouldn't hurt to have a chronology for each artist.
 * Done Of course. This is obvious.

Lead

 * Lead seems a little short.
 * Done Expanded a little...


 * When was the album released, what label released it...
 * Done


 * That has garnered positive reviews from critics. --> What did critics have to say about it?
 * Done

Recording

 * I have no issues here. Everything is well written. The heading would be more appropriate as "Development and recording", as it also discusses how the album came to friction.

Tour

 * The performers also released a five-track 10" single "Let's Multiply" exclusive for Record Store Day. --> Missing a source.
 * Done


 * Dates --> What year did these take place?
 * Done

Critical reception

 * The album has received largely positive reviews, garnering an 80% or "generally favorable reviews" on Metacritic with 12 reviews. --> Worded a bit awkwardly. MDNA_(album) is a great example on showing the Metacritic score. Additionally, the album has a 81 and with 13 reviews.
 * Done


 * Concluding "If this weren't presented so staunchly as being at least part 'Woody Guthrie album,' it might be a little easier to swallow." --> Concluding that "If this weren't presented so staunchly as being at least part 'Woody Guthrie album,' it might be a little easier to swallow."
 * Done


 * I don't see any reason to separate these into three paragraphs, they all seem like they could fit into one perfectly; especially the last one.
 * Done

Sales charts

 * This really doesn't say much. How about some commentary? It should also be noted that it is the U.S. Billboard.
 * Partially done There's not much to be said, really. I don't know what I could say, so I just made it prose.

Overall

 * Overall, it seems like a fairly well written article. I just have one concern that I did mention above:
 * For someone who is not familiar with Woody Guthrie, why not include some info about who he is as background information? Per WPALBUMS: "It should not be assumed that the reader is familiar with the artist's history and/or previously released albums." Now, I'm not trying to say that you should include everything there is ever to know about himl maybe just some key points and why he is so important that they created a tribute album for him. Statυs  (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Done —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Verdict

 * All issues have been addressed. Passing the article! Great work! Statυs  (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)