Talk:The Great Lost Kinks Album/GA1

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

Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 20:43, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Needs alt
 * Added.


 * Genre is not sourced on the in the body of the article
 * I couldn't find anything, so I'll just remove it.


 * See Template:Infobox album for studio and producer
 * I tweaked the studio one, but I'd rather not have them all laid out with "London" for each line when I could just keep it cleaner the way it is with one line. That's the way its done at a FA like Sgt. Pepper. Regarding the producer, this is how its credited on the record.
 * Credited or not like that on the record, you need to comply with the template. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed.
 * You hav yet to fix the producer. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry,, I hope I'm not seeming obtuse, I didn't understand what you meant and thought this one was sufficient. Is this good?  Tkbrett  (✉) 19:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

✅

Lead

 * Released in the United States in January 1973 →
 * I think you accidentally erased your suggestion.


 * The compilation served to satisfy Reprise Records → satisfy regarding what?
 * Reworded things to be clearer.


 * The Great Lost Kinks Album offered the debut release for many of its tracks → doesn't every album does this? Do you mean the unreleased tracks? be more specific
 * It's a compilation album, which typically have previously released tracks. I tweaked the wording to clarify.


 * No. → number
 * Unless I'm missing something, it's fine by MOS:NUMERO.
 * Use No.. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:22, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Template:Numero gives an abbreviation option, so I added it in. I didn't see anything specific at MOS:ABBR about whether the mouse-over tooltip should be used on first mention or for everything use, but I did the former since it lines-up with WP:OVERLINK. What do you think?


 * Mention there was a re-issue of most of these songs
 * Good point – added.


 * Add more detail to the critical reception sentence.
 * Added more.


 * After this split the second paragraph into two
 * Done.

✅

Background

 * Reprise Records' offices, → Reprise Records's offices.
 * Fixed.


 * most of which were → Most of those were
 * Done.


 * LP → studio album
 * Done.


 * "spare tracks" and not assigned a master → "spare tracks" withouth a master
 * The point is that they weren't assigned a master number after he delivered them. I think the reword would make that less clear.


 * songs' → songs's
 * Shouldn't it be the former by MOS:PLURALNOUN?


 * Due to the rejection, Reprise determined → I don't understand the "Due to the rejection" portion, maybe just remove it ad replaced it with "However" or something in that vein. RS's Rob Sheffield wrote, "When the band switched record companies, their old label punished them by rushing out this ragbag of unreleased treasures" → this was the cause then?
 * Because Reprise didn't release Percy in the US, the label's execs figured the Kinks still owed them one more album. I reworded it to make that clearer.

✅

Song selection

 * of Kink Kronikles – a reference to → of Kink Kronikles. It was a reference to
 * Done.


 * In the early 1970s, compilation albums collecting previously unreleased material had become increasingly common among record labels seeking to undermine bootleg recordings; comparable contemporary examples include the Who's Odds and Sods (1974) and Jefferson Airplane's Early Flight (1974), though they differed in that the labels sought approval from the bands before their release → I can see the reasoning for this sentence until the ";" Afterwards you just lost me, its too much detail for something unrelated to the album.
 * Fair enough. Cut it.


 * from the aborted → from the unreleased
 * Done.


 * No. → number
 * See above.

✅

Release and commercial performance

 * Is the catalog number essential information?
 * Not really. Cut it.


 * wrote liner notes for the album → which one? Is confusing because you mention another compilation album beforehead
 * Clarified.


 * Can note three be written in the text? As a form of comparison.
 * Sure, brought it into the body.


 * No. → number
 * See above.

✅

Contemporary reviews

 * to Reprise' → to Reprise's
 * Fixed.


 * resolved → this is not an appropriate word for this article
 * Reworded.


 * "Waterloo Sunset" or "Lola", → year of release between brackets
 * Added.


 * In the Los Angeles Times, critic → Los Angeles Times's critic
 * Done.


 * mentioned the same songs → mentioned the latter two songs, he also mentioned "Victoria"
 * I reworded it as ...mentioned the same songs and "Victoria" (1969)...


 * of the underground newspaper → of the newspaper
 * Done.

✅

Retrospective assessment

 * LP's → album's
 * Done.


 * as the LP's highlights. → as the highlights
 * Done.

✅

Track listing

 * Couldn't the notes here be included on another section of the article?
 * The only comparable example I can think of is the FA for Aftermath, which includes a note regarding the different spelling of "Paint It Black" at each first linking. I tried consolidating it all in one note in the Release section, along with a mention in the body about the different spellings.
 * Writing credits are per Doug Hinman. → Don't you already have this on the body of the article?
 * I don't think so.

✅

Personnel

 * Fine

Charts

 * Fine

Overall

 * You can now address the issues, let me know once you are done. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Responses above.  Tkbrett  (✉) 20:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Left replies in some sections. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Only missing one thing. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review. Cheers.  Tkbrett  (✉) 21:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)