Talk:Shoegazing Kids/GA1

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


 * Infobox
 * The reviews should be arranged alphabetically.
 * The length doesn't need to be referenced.
 * What makes Force Critique a reliable source? It appears to be a blog of some sort, those are generally not acceptable sources for reviews on Wikipedia.


 * Lead section
 * I think the lead section could do with a bit of expansion, just to make both paragraphs a bit more substantial. It does feature information from all the sections of the article but those two paragraphs are rather short.
 * I think the order of the lead section should mirror the order of the article. Information about the background and musical style should be in the first paragraph and then information about singles/promotion and reception should be in the second.
 * "It was released on the Discograph label on 26 January 2009, as a physical release and download in their homeland, and as a download in a number of other countries."
 * I don't like the structure of this sentence, it feels like two sentences squashed in to one. Try something like this to make it more cohesive:
 * "Released on January 26, 2009 through Discograph Records the album was available as both a physical release and download in their home country of France, but exclusively as a download in a number of other countries."
 * There shouldn't be sources in the lead section unless it is backing up a direct quote, as the lead section is a summary of the article to follow.
 * "It achieved a peak position of #69 on the French albums chart.[7] Upon its release, the album received mostly positive reviews. In France, the album sold over 10,000 copies.[8]"
 * The first sentence of that quote seems far too short and should be combined with the last sentence, so you have one sentence about the commercial reception and then one about the critical response. I also think you could expand on the critical response slightly for the lead.
 * "The songs are a mixture of indie rock and shoegaze styles."
 * That sentence seems disjointed and short, it should be expanded and linked with the following sentence.


 * Background and recording
 * The section as a whole isn't bad, maybe a bit short though. I would like to see more information about the writing and recording process if possible. Were was the album recorded? New York? It's unclear.
 * I found this quote confirming that they went to New York to work with Nick:
 * "We had a very clear and precise idea of how we wanted things to sound before we headed off to work with Nick in New York,"
 * To my understanding this makes it sound like the recorded the album in New York with him as producer and mixer. Is this the case? It should be confirmed.
 * "The band's bassist, Arno Bordas"
 * You shouldn't wiki-link bassist.
 * "The record was mastered by Grammy Award winner Ted Jensen, who had worked with such artists as Norah Jones and Metallica."
 * You shouldn't go in to that much detail about Ted Jensen, that's what his article is for. Simply saying that he mastered the album is enough.
 * "The songs for Shoegazing Kids were written in France. The band travelled to New York in 2008 and recorded the tracks in one studio. American record producer Nick Sansano later mixed the record in the same city."
 * These 3 points feel very separate and it makes me question why they're even notable. Try something like:
 * "Stuck in the Sound wrote the songs for Shoegazing Kids in their home country of France before traveling to New York in 2008 to work with American producer Nick Sansano."
 * Then maybe mention the fact that the band felt the fact that they work together in one studio for a change made it feel more like a connected album.


 * Musical style
 * I would suggest introducing a structure to this section, for example; having the first paragraph based wholly on the musical style and then the second paragraph based on the vocals and lyrics. It would just help justify having two paragraphs and make it a stronger section.
 * "Fontao claimed that the album was aimed at the band's teenage fan-base.[10]"
 * I believe that belongs more in the reception section.
 * The second paragraph in that section isn't very substantial so I suggest combining the two, I don't see the need for the separation.


 * Release
 * I would once again suggest introducing a structure to this section. Like having the first paragraph about the release of the album and the sales/charts. Then the second about their singles and touring.
 * "In France, the album sold over 10,000 copies."
 * Since when? This should be dated so that it is known in what time frame that many copies were sold.


 * Critical reception
 * "The record was generally well received by critics.[2][5][10][12]"
 * You do not need to source this sentence as it should be justified by the rest of the section.
 * One review praised the band's "extreme technical skill"
 * I suggest outlining who said that, for example: "In his/hers review of the album, [Reviewer] of [publication] praised the band's "extreme technical skill""
 * It adds clarity and in turn bulks up the text.
 * I like how you have separated the positive and negative reviews in to paragraphs, but both paragraphs seem too short and I would like to see them both expanded, you have plenty of reviews to use.
 * "Shoegazing Kids was generally well received by critics who praised the energy and ability of the band. In his review of the album, Iain WhiteTapes lauded Stuck in the Sound's "extreme technical skill",[8] and called the album a "revelling journey through stories of failed relationships, fleeting romances and long nights in Paris bars",[8] while another critic praised the album, calling it "good pop that is for everyone, both terribly accessible and really exciting".[6]"
 * Should be two separate sentences like:
 * "Shoegazing Kids was generally well received by critics who praised the energy and ability of the band. In his review of the album, Iain WhiteTapes lauded Stuck in the Sound's "extreme technical skill", and called the album a "revelling journey through stories of failed relationships, fleeting romances and long nights in Paris bars." While another critic praised the album, calling it "good pop that is for everyone, both terribly accessible and really exciting".[6]"
 * "Marine Bienvenot described the song "I Love You Dark" as a "pop gem".[4] She also said that the band had succeeded in their combination of melodic power pop and rock guitars, and that this was aided by Fontao's vocals.[4]"
 * Would work better as one sentence, like:
 * "Marine Bienvenot described the song "I Love You Dark" as a "pop gem", while also claiming the band had succeeded in their combination of melodic power pop and rock guitars, and that this was aided by Fontao's vocals.[4]"


 * Personnel
 * Why is this section so short? Do you have the CD? If so, they generally have a list of credits in them, you should also (at least) find out who the producer was and add Ted Jensen to this list. (See Kylie (album) as an example)
 * This is a big hole in the article per WikiProject Albums/Assessment a B-class article must have:
 * "A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians."
 * Just two production credits aren't enough I'm afraid so you will need to address this.


 * Other
 * The album is only in one category, you should add it to more, maybe genre or record label. At least create a category for the Artist.
 * Consider creating a Template to link all articles related to the artist. See Template:Metallica

Result

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Looks good on the sources front except the FC review mentioned above.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * The biggest issue is with the lack of a full personnel section.
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

I am putting the review on hold in the hopes that you can address my concerns within a week or two.

Reviewer:  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  01:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review, I think the concerns have been addressed. -- Big  Dom  17:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's looking much better, almost there. I have added a few more comments above as I don't think it's up to GA standards yet, the particular main faults are with the Personnel and background info.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  19:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Addressed the comments again, only bit I am struggling with is the Personnel section. I can't really expand it any more as I don't have the CD because it's not been released in the UK. -- Big  Dom  19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added more comments, personnel is a bit of an issue here I'm afraid and you'll need to address before I can pass it.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  20:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I've done your new comments, but it looks like I'm going to have to admit defeat on this one because I just have no way of getting the CD. I'll keep trying, so I'd appreciate if you keep it on hold for a few more days. Cheers, -- Big  Dom  21:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it appears that this is grounds enough to fail the article so I will leave it on hold for another week in the hopes that you can resolve the issue by then, if not I will be forced to fail it. I will close the nomination on January 13th.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  15:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm closing and failing this nomination per my last comment.  REZTER  TALK   &oslash;  10:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)