Talk:Something to Remember/GA1

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

Reviewer: XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Prose
 * Lead
 * in "producer" section of infobox, the redirects to Babyface and John Benitez should be corrected.
 * for duration in infobox, have it read "1:11:08" rather than "71:08" for simplicity sake.
 * for duration in infobox, have it read "1:11:08" rather than "71:08" for simplicity sake.


 * Development
 * Per WP:OVERCITE, ref#11 should just be used at the end of the sentence before Madonna's "No, it's about empowering yourself." quote in the second paragraph after quotebox, and ref#13 should just be used at the end of the "attempting to win a lost lover back" sentence in said paragraph.
 * ✅ WP:OVERCITE is an essay, not a guideline. But I agree though
 * More WP:OVERCITE in the third paragraph after quotebox- ref#6 should just be used right after the end of the Robert Del Naja quote, ref#9 should just be used at the end of the "she is determined to change his mind" sentence, and ref#13 only needs to be used at the end of the paragraph


 * Critical reception
 * "Allmusic" should be "AllMusic"
 * the song titles in the quotes from Neil Strauss and Ken Tucker should be ' rather than "
 * They wrote like that in the review article. Not really sure, but ✅
 * I'm sure they did, but the standard is to have ' when quoting a quote or quoting someone stating a title.
 * More WP:OVERCITE in the second paragraph- ref#37 should just be used at the end of the paragraph
 * More WP:OVERCITE in the third paragraph- ref#44 should just be used at the end of the "ambitious blonde is more singer than celebrity" quote.
 * The last sentence in the third paragraph would read better as something like "In a negative review, Robert Christgau gave the album a 'dud' rating and called it 'a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought.'"
 * Actually if we check the references, Robert Christgau never wroteSomething to Remember 'a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought'. He simply gave it a 'dud' rating without any commentary. I think if we rewrite it like that, it looks like a direct comments to the album, which is not. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * In that case, try something like "Robert Christgau criticized the album as 'a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought'."
 * Still sounding like a direct commentary. He did not say anything to the album. What about this? -> Robert Christgau criticized the album with a "dud" rating, which means "a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought." Bluesatellite (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, though I would probably use "indicating" or "commenting" rather than "which means".
 * In that case, try something like "Robert Christgau criticized the album as 'a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought'."
 * Still sounding like a direct commentary. He did not say anything to the album. What about this? -> Robert Christgau criticized the album with a "dud" rating, which means "a bad record whose details rarely merit further thought." Bluesatellite (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, though I would probably use "indicating" or "commenting" rather than "which means".


 * Commercial performance
 * More WP:OVERCITE in the second paragraph- ref#55 should just be used at the end of the second sentence of said paragraph.


 * Track listing
 * for the main section, include the total duration (1:11:08) at the bottom


 * Sourcing
 * Critical reception
 * ref#21 (Amazon.com) isn't very suitable for reviews, as things like this, iTunes, and eBay can have all sorts of reviews, most of which aren't exactly professional. It could perhaps be used as a reference for release dates, but I wouldn't recommend it for album/song reviews.
 * It's a review made by the website editor (which is quite professional), not review from the users/buyers/customers. Amazon.com is also included on Metacritic scoring.
 * I mainly had the user/buyers/customers in mind, though the site editor definitely has more merit. WP:ALBUM/SOURCES also discourages this use.
 * If you follow the provided link Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_26, there's no consensus about it, only an opinion of one user who pointed out the "user-submitted reviews". The one on Something to Remember is the editorial review, and again Metacritic approve Amazon.com to their aggregate critics tabulation. Bluesatellite (talk) 03:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not doubting Rickey Wright's credibility, though WP:ALBUM/SOURCES is currently discouraging it. For now, I'd say remove the review, re-open the conversation on Amazon.com on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCES talkpage, see where that goes.
 * Removed for now. Bluesatellite (talk) 04:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Coverage
 * No problems here


 * Neutrality
 * No problems here


 * Stability
 * No problems here

If the following is fixed within the next seven days, I will pass for GA.
 * GAN Result
 * Thanks for giving time to review the article. Bluesatellite (talk) 01:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Very well done, now passing. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
 * GA Pass