Talk:Remixed & Revisited/GA1

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

Hi there. I will be reviewing this article. Check back in the near future for a conclusion/work-to-be-done. Rafablu88 11:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * It looks fine after copyediting.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * OK on this part.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Solid, if unspectacular on this part. Remember that extensive details on tangents like the VMA are unnecessary in the grand scheme of things. Brevity is a virtue.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Neutral.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * Yes.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): N/A b (appropriate use with suitable captions): N/A
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail: PASS, but I notice that the material cut down is still included between <--- --->. I hope it's not reintroduced after GA as that would necessitate a re-review and subsequent failure. Rafablu88  13:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Guaranteed. I kept it hidden because I wanna use the detail for the live performance of the relevant song articles. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Guaranteed. I kept it hidden because I wanna use the detail for the live performance of the relevant song articles. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 13:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The text says a single was released. Why are the singles not listed in the infobox? Their chart placings also need to be shown in the Charts performance section. Rafablu88  13:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What single?
 * "The Nevins mix of "Nothing Fails" peaked on the Canadian Singles Chart at number seven and entered the Hot Dance Club Play chart." Rafablu88  14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The line doensnot say that a single was released. A song can chart on the Canadian and Billboard charts based on downloads also. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 04:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case a box should still be added to chart performance but as "Non-singles" or "Songs" and show their chart performance. Rafablu88  06:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That I feel is unnecessary and should pertain to the actual song articles. No other GA albums have the chart performance tables of their singles/non-singles. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but since we're using it to prove wrong, let's use it to prove right. Or actually, stop using it altogether and include a song box in charts performance. Rafablu88  09:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No Line on the Horizon is a prime example of WP:UNDUE and how such stuff which should matter for the singles articles are being overtly added in tables in the charts section. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how an opinion-based criterion applies to songs that form part of the entity being written about in the article. The fact is, a song charted in two places and need a box in chart performance. Rafablu88  11:44, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent)I am not denying the fact that they charted. However I'm against giving any undue weightage to their performance in contrast to the commercial reception of the album. They have their own articles to mention it. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your UNDUE argument makes no sense as I explained above. But I checked Madonna's discography nonetheless and there is no mention of "Nothing Fails (Jason Nevins Mix)" and a chart box about it anywhere. Rafablu88  11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and add it then. I'm tired of this petty arguments. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I've already been more hands than most reviewers. It's up to you to add it. And I wouldn't call it petty. Discussion is healthy and I've only got the article's quality in mind. I'll await for action on my advice points before I pass it. Rafablu88  12:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

* Some work/publisher naming conventions are different from others. Pick one and stick to it.
 * REF WORK:
 * Changes vary because of ussage of Cite web and cite news templates.
 * 6, 7, 8 need web and not news templates. Rafablu88  10:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * They are online news published by those sources. Hence the cite news template is justified. --Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not print media. Needs a web template. Rafablu88  11:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Check Template:Cite news. Not necessary that print media should link to it. Online versions of such sources can also use it. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, 5, 9, and 10 should also have it for uniformity. Rafablu88  12:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right about source 5. I have changed it. However, 9 is simply a link to the videos and is in no way a news. 10 is actually a critical analysis of Madonna at that point of time and is again not news. Hence the cite web template is suitable for these two sources. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 12:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9 needs a publisher as it only has the work. Rafablu88  11:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 11:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 9 - Link publication.
 * 17, 18 - Top40Charts is to be avoided as per WP:CHARTS. Please find a replacement(s).
 * Removed already.
 * 19 - Should be just "Ultratop"
 * top-40 charts have been removed in entirety. I didnot notice the updated WP:GOODCHARTS.


 * I'm placing it till my queries and nitpicks have been addressed.  Rafablu88  18:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done the easy parts. I think the author of the text is the one who should decide what to do with the other things.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 12:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see some of my edits have reverted. Firstly, the release is clearly a compilation/remix and deserves a green infobox. Secondly, WP:ALBUM is not exhaustive and gives editors freedom to adapt articles the way they see fit considering the info present. As it stands, the article is disjunct since you're making people jump from some of tracks to reception to the rest of the tracks. "Conception and promotion"/"Origins and conception" are clearly more suitable and superior. Rafablu88  14:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it passes the threshold of an EP and have changed it back. Promotion in this case is not a suitable title since any promotion should come with an announcement or any source that the artist is performing for promoting the album. However in this case, the MTV VMA performance took place when there wasn't any plans for the compilation to be released. That cannot be considered a promotion. But the songs from this album has been performed live, hence a detailed live performance section warranties.
 * Promotion does not have to be explicit. Since the track made its way into the EP after that special performance then its details have to be put there. And I also see that you've increased the details of it, I would like to remind you that the name of the article is "Remixed & Revisited" and not "Madonna's performance at the 2003 VMAs". Please follow WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I was very careful to cut it down so that it would satisfy it. As it stands, there's too much detail, and trivial stuff at that. Rafablu88  06:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This edit passes the criteria, provided the improvements above are all made. Rafablu88  07:01, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have briefed up the whole article again. --Legolas  ( talk 2 me ) 09:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've sorted it. Just sort out my points and we're good to go. Rafablu88  11:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)