Talk:Not All the Beautiful Things

GA Nomination checklist
Based on the points stated at Talk:Not All the Beautiful Things/GA1, I will be creating a checklist here to mark off completed tasks.


 * Lead and infobox
 * Please add ALT text for the infobox image. ✅
 * References are normally discouraged for the lead and infobox unless it is controversial information. None of the information currently cited in the lead and the infobox is particularly controversial, and it all should be included in the body of the article with the appropriate citations. ✅
 * The information on the genres should be cited in the body of the article. Same goes for the record label. ✅
 * In the infobox, you say that the album was recorded between the years 2014 and 2018, but it is not included or cited in the body of the article. If this information does not have a citation, then it needs to be removed. ✅ Already cited in background, album took four years to make
 * The article on What So Not refers to it as a “musical project”, but the opening sentence of the lead makes it sound like “What So Not” is just an alternative name for Emerson. Wouldn’t it be better to revise the opening sentence of the lead to the following (Not All the Beautiful Things is the debut album by Australian music project What So Not, which consists of Chris Emerson.) to clarify this matter? I am just confused about this for most of the article. I would also make the second half of the sentence on the release date and record label into its own sentence. ✅
 * For this sentence (Emerson began his work on the album after completing an intense six-year long global touring period, which had left him unable to commit fully to a studio album.), I would remove “his” from “his work”, and I would make “intense six-year long global tour period” to “six-year global tour period”. ✅
 * For this sentence (His frequent travels influenced the sound design of many tracks in the album, including "Beautiful" and “Us”.), you can just say “sound” instead of “sound design”. ✅
 * I have two comments about this sentence (The record's title was named after the "important" things which are ignored by people who focus only on their grandiose ideas.). Please clarify who is saying this; was this something that Emerson said, someone else who worked on the album, or a critic? I would also paraphrase the “important” quote. ✅ Phrase "simple pleasures" highlighted in ref 3
 * For this part ( It featured collaborations with a wide range of artists), I would say “features” as the album will always feature these collaborations and thus should be in the present tense. ✅
 * I have two comments for this sentence (The album received generally positive reviews from music critics who praised the featuring guests and production quality.). Please put a comma after “critics” and I would say “features” or “featured artists” rather than “featuring guests”. ✅
 * I would see if you could divide the lead into two paragraphs as it is an awkward length right now. ✅
 * For this part (The record included three singles), I would use “includes” rather than “included”. ✅


 * Background and development
 * Please link “What So Not” on the first time that you mention it in the body of the article. ✅
 * When you first mention “extended play”, please add (EP) after its first use to make the acronym clear to an unfamiliar reader. ✅
 * I am a little confused the chronology of the first paragraph. I have never heard of this album or group prior to reading this article. I think that moving this sentence (Emerson had previously released four EPs under What So Not, three which was co-produced with Australian artist Flume before his departure from the project.) to the front would be helpful. ✅
 * I am not sure if all of the quotes in the first paragraph are necessary. ✅
 * You use the word “encounter” twice in the context of cultures. I would revise this to avoid it. ✅
 * The prose for this section could use work. I would put in a request for a copy-edit here. I think that this section as a whole needs work to read more cohesively. ✅
 * I do not really see how the Toto quotebox is relevant to this article. It is not really about the album at all.
 * Comment: The track stands out within the album, so I thought it could use some background behind it. If not, I'll remove it and add it as text to the single section.


 * Promotion
 * This section is only about the tour so I either rename it to “Tour” or add more information about other promotional strategies done for the album. ✅


 * Critical reception
 * I would give more a structure to this section as it currently appears like a rather random assortment of critics and their opinions. I would look to Copyediting reception sections for information on how to do this. ✅, can still be improved.
 * Commercial performance
 * You will need to include information on the album’s commercial performance in the prose as either a separate “Commercial performance” section or combine it with the “Critical reception” section for a “Reception” section. ✅
 * No coverage on commercial performance and sales, on Billboard or any related sites.
 * The song charted so you need to have that information present and cited in the prose. The above statement is also untrue, as it charted on a Billboard chart so there would be coverage on that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Trueee, I can include the charting info regardless since it appeared on Billboard, though it might not be long. Thanks!
 * This information needs to be present in the prose in some form. Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)


 * References
 * Avoid WP:Shouting for Reference 3. ✅


 * External links
 * I would add a link to the discogs page. Unreliable source
 * From my experience with album articles in the GAN and FAC process, this is a norm. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:ALBUMAVOID though, Discogs is known to be USER:G and is therefore unreliable.


 * Comments
 * Should I add the peak chart position to the lead? The album only reached number 8, so I'm not sure if it's an achievement.
 * I'm resubmitting the nomination with all your suggestions taken into account, do re-review the article whenever you're free! Before you do though, I hope you can look at the comments I've made on some of the suggestions to see if they can be rectified by any chance. :) aNode   (discuss)  15:58, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the ping, and good luck with the article. I unfortunately do not have the time to review the article again; either way, it would be more helpful to you to have another perspective anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2018 (UTC)