Talk:Tea & Sympathy (Bernard Fanning album)/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Tea &amp; Sympathy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I chose to review this article. Comments coming soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

That's all. You may drop a message to me or here informing that my suggestions are all addressed or properly been objected for further discussion. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is musician the proper identification for Fanning in this kind of aricle?
 * I dunno. He sings, plays guitar, and a few other instruments. It's easiest to just use that one word for him. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok. No worries. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "during the hiatus of Fanning's main project, Powderfinger." Hmm.. is Powderfinger an album? Calling it a project is kind of ambiguous.
 * "Fanning moved away from Powderfinger's solid alternative rock sound towards country-folk" Conflicting… The album is identified both alternative rock and country-folk.
 * I don't get this: "on the back of the end of a twelve year relationship of Fanning's".
 * "Also drawing inspiration from social and political influences" This could be rephrased. The word inspiration is synonymous to influence or a related word. So its near redundancy.
 * Mediocre is a point of view. It is also vague.
 * No it's not. The numbers (3/5 on average) are mediocre. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * its your opinion, and therefore its POV. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how using the dictionary definition of the word is my opinion or POV. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is how you interpret 3/5 as mediocre. Readers might not. --Efe (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's the definition of the word! Average, ordinary, not extraordinary. To interpret differently would require a reader to not know the meaning of the word. giggy (O) 09:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it is the definition. But the word "mediocre" is how you interpret the review as a whole. To play safe, we usually say its positive, negative or mixed. --Efe (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I reworded when I made my last comment. giggy (O) 07:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are those start needed? It is very detailed. I think it always fine to just state whether critics of this album were positive of negative. Or, you can summarize what they felt about this album?
 * We do not have any idea of these awards: APRA Award and J Award. Unlike ARIA, it is clearly identified as Australian Recording Industry Association and it comes clear to us.
 * They're award titles and they have wikilinks... giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Any spelled-out forms of those awards? --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * See the articles; it would take far too long. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahm, recording is part of an album's production so it would be brief to just name it "background and production".
 * What is Drag and The Predators?
 * "Several band members played with side projects Drag and The Predators" giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Put it. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I was quoting the article; it says that (emphasis was mine though). giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the word "could" should be in italics?
 * Yep, that's deliberate, to add emphasis. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's POV. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm confused, please explain how. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It is formatted in italics in the source? --Efe (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, I'm not quoting the source—that would be a copyvio. I'm writing that in italics to give emphasis based on the emphasis given in the source. giggy (O) 09:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The year 2005 had been earmarked as a hiatus period for some time; the only other break the band had had was in 2002, shortly before Vulture Street's release." Hmm… This part breaks the flow of the paragraph. I think it would better to mention in the first sentence the year they went on to hiatus. Then, remove the other hiatus; it does not make relevance, for me.
 * "However, the recent death of his brother to cancer, and the ending of a twelve year relationship, saw Fanning brought into the centre of the tabloid spotlight. The resulting change in musical direction saw Tea & Sympathy described as a "breakup album" by the Oakland Tribune." The word "saw" is exhausted in this part and "brought into the centre of the tabloid spotlight" is a bit unclear. Also, "and the ending of a twelve year relationship" has no context.
 * Reworded some. Not sure what you mean by no context... giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the relationship here refers to Fanning's brother? Seems confusing. --Efe (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Aah, you're right, my bad. Fixed. giggy (O) 09:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "he was not intent" I do not know but this seems awkward for me.
 * "who had previously worked with artists such as Crowded House, Tom Waits and Gomez." I think this is irrelevant to Fanning working with Blake
 * "While writing, Fanning listened to the work Lightning Hopkins, Tom Petty, Gillian Welch, who all influenced his work." Work is used twice here
 * "The album peaked at #1 on the ARIA Albums Chart and #11 on the RIANZ Albums Chart." I suggest you write the sign in words. Also, others do not have the idea what RIANZ is.
 * "It did not chart in Australia, but peaked at number 24 in New Zealand, after entering the chart on 30 January 2006." Is it important to say that it did not chart in Australia? And "after entering the chart on 30 January 2006"? Seems redundant. It is already mentioned that it peaked at number 24.
 * Fanning being Aussie, it's more likely to chart here than in New Zealand, so yeah, I think it's worth noting that. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I was thinking of that too. Ignore this. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "Fanning claims the inspiration for the song "materialised" when he awoke one morning; "I woke up and Wish You Well just arrived in a splurge. There were swallows flying around. I was in an unusually positive frame of mind." This part breaks the flow. It is under the section album and single releases.
 * Yeah, I generally throw in a tidbit of info on each song there to make it more interesting. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * But it would be better if its under related section. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "claims" and "most broadcast" There is something wrong with the tense.
 * "The second single, "Songbird", was only released digitally" Where?
 * Digitally, as in, on the internet. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. What I mean is what country? --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * It was released on the internet, so it's available in all countries. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "The song was performed by Fanning, Chambers, and Clare Bowditch at the 2006 ARIA Awards." I think this is not very important.
 * It was a highly significant a notable performance. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No relevance. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "highly successful" is POV
 * Well, it did win three awards, so I'd say the facts back it up. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Its your point of view. Just state the facts. =) --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Reworded. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * ""Wish You Well" won Best Video, and "Watch Over Me" was nominated for Single Of The Year." There is also related information in the section album and singles releases regarding nominations etc. It would be better to put them under one section only.
 * "Fanning won Best Male Artist for his work on the album" This is already mentioned above.
 * "described modestly" modestly here is POV/vague.
 * "Cox reported that "Rock God" Fanning resembled Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young," What is Rock God? And Crosby, Stills and Nash & Young?
 * "and the subject matter; the death of Fanning's brother and the ending of his 12-year relationship." Misused punctuation, I think
 * Seems OK to me... giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * "a far cry" I cannot dig this.
 * "by the use of "generic" song titles was criticised" Something wrong in this part
 * Reviews are far too detailed.
 * Is that a bad thing? giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * General form. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * General form is to include minimal amounts of information? If so, I'm going against it. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the personnel section. What are those UK and Aus performance? Is it part of the album production?
 * Any information regarding the music and lyrics of the album? It would suffice broadness of this article's coverage.
 * Um... there's stuff about that in two of the article's sections. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you make that into another section? If not, its fine. But this is needed when its on FAC. --Efe (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, not really, as the information is integrated into these sections. giggy (O) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Stuff not replied to has been fixed. Thanks! giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to randomly drop in: "The BBC's Jenna Bachelor gave Tea & Sympathy 3 out of 5...Barnaby Smith of website musicOMH rated Tea & Sympathy three stars out of five" uses inconsistent numbering styles :) Daniel (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Thanks Daniel. I forgot to add this one. --Efe (talk) 09:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed. giggy (O) 09:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems looking good to me now except the very huge "reception" section. It could be cut down but I'm passing this as GA. Already meets the criteria. --Efe (talk) 08:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)