Talk:Pearl Jam (album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Idiotchalk (talk · contribs) 11:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)


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

Overall, this is a fairly decent article, however, there are a few problems that need to be addressed before it can be passed as a good article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * When nominated, the prose had some very minor issues which were edited.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * The article doesn't seem to contain any original research and it cites references where appropriate, although there are some issues with the references (see below) (fixed as of January 2, 2012)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The article covers all aspects of the album without getting off-topic or unfocused.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No bias at all.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No evidence of edit wars.
 * 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):
 * The article features two artwork covers and differentiates between both, and suitable image in Tour section.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * The problems listed below were addressed and the article is now suitable for a pass, as of January 2, 2012 (22:10, GMT)

Issues in the article

 * Lead section
 * "sometimes referred to as The Avocado Album", reference 18 could be used here to verify the claim.
 * It was... but since it's usually "reference the whole lead" or "don't reference at all", I picked that instead of a sole ref.
 * Another paragraph could be added to describe the musical style, as the lead should read as an overview of the whole article.
 * "Pearl Jam was well-received critically, and was a commercial success", although it is mentioned in detail later in the article, this could use an overall reference.


 * Recording
 * "For the album, Pearl Jam worked again with producer Adam Kasper." What previous album did Kasper produce?
 * "The resulting material was more up-tempo compared with the band's last few albums. Vedder attributed this to the band writing a lot of material that kept getting pared down, with the band leaving behind mid-tempo songs, while Ament suggested that it was because of the band balancing recording and touring which resulted in "physicality ... from being out on the road." This would be more fitting in Music and lyrics section.
 * "As Pearl Jam's contract with Epic Records had ended in 2003 [...] Backspacer three years later." This would be more fitting in the Release and reception section.


 * Music and lyrics
 * "leaving everything behind to start again" could use better, and less vague, wording.


 * Packaging
 * "Fernando Apodaca handled the liner notes art as well as the music video for "Life Wasted." Is there any need to mention the "Life Wasted" video?
 * "Those who pre-ordered the album through Pearl Jam's official website..." could use better wording. For example: "Copies of the album were made available for pre-order through Pearl Jam's official website with different CD art and packaging than the retail version."
 * "this fan club pre-order version resembles a book and has the liner notes bound inside it", needs reference.


 * Release and reception
 * "The lead single "World Wide Suicide" (backed with B-side "Unemployable", also from the album), was made available through online music stores." This could use a reference and there is no need to mention that "Unemployable" is from the album, as it's mentioned in Track listing.
 * ""World Wide Suicide" entered the Billboard Hot 100 at number 41, reached number two on the Mainstream Rock charts, and spent a total of three weeks at number one on the Modern Rock charts." The last statement needs a reference.


 * Tour
 * "which was the first concert the new material was played at", statement needs a reference.


 * Outtakes
 * This entire section can be merged with Recording.


 * Personnel
 * This section should have a reference, possibly from the album's liner notes?


 * Accolades
 * No need for this section, as it's already mentioned in Release and reception.


 * References
 * 2. This article does not exist.<
 * 4. The page number of CD booklet should be mentioned.
 * 6. The URL cites the wrong page of the article (should be page 1, not page 2).
 * 9. The link doesn't work.
 * The article is there. The problem is that archive.org has a problem with playing mp3...
 * 14. The article mentions alcohol abuse, not drug use.
 * 17, 22 and 40. These need fixing. If they are from the web, please add a URL. If it's from a magazine/journal, the author and issue/page number would be helpful.
 * One has a totally dead (not even on Archive.org!) link. The other two don't even have that. But expanded with cite journal/news.
 * 21. The site does not mention that there is only one pressing.
 * 41 and 55. These references, although reliable, should perhaps use Billboard, as it's a direct source?
 * Replaced the latter (the former has a problem: Billboard is currently not opening the "Chart History" tab of band pages...).
 * 43. This could use a more reliable source, perhaps an online article?
 * 50. The link mentions downloads are/were available, but doesn't mention what was available.
 * 54. There doesn't seem to be any mention of the album charting at #12 on Belgian Album Chart (WA).
 * 74. The certification is Platinum, not Gold, according to source.

There are also some general issues with the references, such as:
 * Templates like (cite web, cite news and cite journal) should be used although there are a lot of references that don't use them.
 * Some titles are missing (for example, reference 5 is "Q&A with Eddie Vedder" not just "Eddie Vedder").
 * Some references only use the year (e.g. reference 5) when the date is mentioned in the article.
 * The work/publisher is missing in some cases (e.g. reference 37).
 * Some of the dates should be formatted. Either change all to YYYY-MM-DD format or Month Day, Year format.
 * Direct quotes in the article note who said them, however the references don't.
 * Can you give an example of this? (standardized the rest, though you can appoint mistakes)


 * Other
 * The languages templates need fixing.

I'd be more than happy to help you with some of these issues, but for now the nomination has been put on hold to await improvements. Idiotchalk (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Did as much as I could of those requests. igordebraga ≠ 05:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All the issues here have been addressed and the article is now passed. Well done! Idiotchalk (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)