Talk:Otis Blue/Otis Redding Sings Soul/GA1

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 04:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hey! I'll start reviewing the article by next week. By Monday May 7, i think.--Hahc21 (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, i'll contact the editors who collaborated in the article.

Round 1
First scan
 * Lead section
 * The lead section needs to be reworked to properly cover all the topics of the article.
 * "Written in a 24-hour period, except "I've Been Loving You Too Long", Otis Blue mainly features cover songs by popular R&B and soul artists." Needs to be rewritten to be clearer. And also if the album covers past songs, it could never be written.
 * Overview
 * Per WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide this section should not exist. The article body should be divided into the following sections:
 * Background
 * Recording/production, Release/promotion/marketing
 * Musical style/writin/composition
 * Artwork/packaging
 * Touring
 * Reception (including both commercial and critical)
 * Tracklisting
 * Personnel
 * Charts
 * Certifications
 * Release history
 * The article only meets a couple of them. Of course, these sections appear if information regarding its content is available. This article mixes critical reception with recording and releases, three topics that should be in different sections, whatever be the length of them. Also, on the lead, the article talks about commercial performance which is not explained in detail into the body. There is no release history even when the article talks of several releases and re-releases and collectors editions.
 * Trackslisting
 * The tracklisting for the original release is perfect. However, the tracklisting for the 2008 CE is a different story. it needs to be rewritten and included into the tracklisting above. Example: I Am... Sasha Fierce.
 * Charts
 * Almost perfect. The tables are as the should. But the sources need to be put insise the table, not underneath.
 * Personnel
 * The Personnel section is perfect.
 * References
 * The references are a mess to read. I'll be doing a minor fix to see if i can make them more readable.

Final comments: This article needs to be re-structured, reworked and also copyedited or peer reviewed to be a GA. As of now, it cannot reach that status on this review. I'll be waiting for the contributors (which i've contacted) to see what options they give me and make my decision. --Hahc21 (talk) 17:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If i don't see any response by Thursday May 10, 2012, i'll be checking the article against GA criteria and give my verdict. --Hahc21 (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The verdict
This article needs so many changes, and they cannot be done during the review process. So i recomend doing what is needed to be done first and then renominating the article again for GA. Also, i suggest a copy-edit or a peer review. All that has to be done is pointed out above.


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 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:

Final comments: With some work, this article could surely reach GA status. 2 things it mandatorily needs: grammar revision, and a modification of the article body with the right sections. it needs to comply with the Manual of Style and the album article style. --Hahc21 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One day on hold is very short, and furthermore you did not leave me a message on my talk page that it is on hold...-- GoP T C N 12:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be easily done if you would have contacted me and waited until I did the changes; why you failed it? I worked on other articles and I was busy in real life...-- GoP T C N 12:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually left a comment on your talk page a couple of days before to let you know i was reviewing the article. I didn't put it on hold. I felt the issues were too many to be fixed directly on the review. As i said on my talk page, i'd be glad to help you out to prepare the article for GA, and i'll make the reassessment by myself. --Hahc21 (talk) 18:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)