Talk:The Razors Edge (AC/DC album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: ZombiUwU (talk · contribs) 05:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I will be conduction this GA review. I'll ping you in a few days when I have a completed review. I'll be doing it in chunks so you'll see me adding some stuff as I go. Also - I'll be doing some copyediting as I go, so please check my edit logs and revert anything you disagree with. I look forward to working with you. FYI this might take a few days. Thanks! ZombiUwU ♥  (🌸 ~♥~ 📝) 05:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much ! ― VAUGHAN J.  (t · c) 05:49, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to do a bit more thorough review of the sources and then I will finish the last 3 sections. Should be able to pass this in the next day. ZombiUwU ♥  (🌸 ~♥~ 📝) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's fine for me. ―  VAUGHAN J.   (t · c) 07:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I finished my review of additional sources and citations and am happy to say that this meets all the GA standards in my opinion. Congratulations! ZombiUwU ♥  (🌸 ~♥~ 📝) 18:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

General Comments

 * My first impression is good, it appears to have an adequate number of sources and citations. The article appears to be well-sectioned. The info box contains relevant information.
 * Well I will say that that's a good start!


 * FYI I will use the American spelling in my suggestions but as per Manual_of_Style either is fine in the final article as long as it is consistent.
 * That's fine to me.


 * Angus Young is mentioned in serval parts of the article but his page is not linked to until the Track Listing section. Like as done for Mike Fraser, I would recommend linking to Angus Young's article for the first mention of him in each section (or at least in the lead). Same for Brian Johnson who is mentioned in the lead but not linked.
 * I only linked the articles when they're first mentioned. Does that sound fine?
 * ✅ Sounds good.

Lead

 * "Critical commentary for the album was generally mixed, with one complimenting Brian Johnson and Angus Young, while the other criticises its similarity to the band's past works." - I understand what this means but I think it is necessary to specify who is criticizing the album. "with one complimenting" could be replaced with "with AllMusic complimenting" the same goes for "while the other criticizes" which could be replaced with "while the Rolling Stone magazine criticized".
 * Added their names too.
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * "...a smash commercial success that returned the band to the popularity of its glory years of the late 1970s and early 1980s." - In my opinion, this was a bit clunky to read. I would reword it to something like "...a smash commercial success that returned the band to a peak equivalent to that of their late 1970s and early 1980s popularity." My main problem is the repeated usage of "of" making it sound a bit weird but this isn't a big issue.
 * Done.
 * ✅ Looks good.

Overall I like the flow of the lead a lot, it feels well-connected and well-worded.

Background

 * Citation number 4 as referenced in Background appears to be broken. When I click the inline citation it takes me to citation number 4 which reads "Kent 1993" No book or article is linked and no other information is given. " Kent 1993" is only mentioned in the one aforementioned place.
 * Fixed.
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * "Following live appearances across Europe, Malcolm Young announced..." I edited this changing "Europe, Malcolm Young announced" to "Europe, rhythm guitarist Malcolm Young announced" because this is his first mention in the article. Feel free to revert if you disagree.
 * That's completely fine to me.
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * "Brian Johnson was unavailable for several months while finalising his divorce, so the Young brothers wrote all the songs for the next album, a practice they continued for all subsequent releases through Power Up in 2020." Good, but I think it should say the name of the album rather than "next album".
 * Is "future albums" better than saying "the next album"? If it's not, feel free to copyedit to any other words and I'll see if it's okay.
 * ✅ Looks good.

Overall pretty good. Brief but covers notable events that affect the band.

Recording and composition

 * I noted the opening sentence for the 2nd paragraph of the section used the wording "instantly recognizable" I checked citation 11 and did not find this wording used. I was wondering if it came from The Razors Edge Booklet (citation 12) or if this was a personal opinion. If it did come from the booklet I would change the wording to 'According to (source here) the "instantly recognizable" opening riff to...' to illustrate that it is not personal opinion. If there isn't a source to back up its recognizability I would just remove "instantly recognizable".
 * Added what was according to, and removed the "instantly recognisable" wording.
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * '"Moneytalks" is also one of AC/DC's biggest hits, peaking number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100,[13] the UK Singles Chart,[3] and the Australian ARIA Singles Chart.[14]' - This just isn't right. It peaked at number 23 on the Billboard Hot 100 but on the UK Singles Chart and the Australian ARIA Singles Chart, it did not. It was number 36 on the UK Singles Chart (according to citation 3) and it was number 21 on the Australian ARIA Singles Chart (according to citation 14). Also don't forget to add "at" before "number 23".
 * Fixed.
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * 'During their subsequent world tour, thousands of "Angus Bucks" were dropped on the audience during the song.' - Needs a brief explanation of what they are and their significance in the context of this section.
 * "thousands of Angus Bucks – a replica of an American $1 bill but with Angus instead of George Washington – were dropped on the audience during the song." – is that fine?
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * "A music video of the song, directed by David Mallet, was also released, featuring a live performance during the tour." While this does seem to be true the cited source is a link to the music video on YouTube which lacks credits. Due to the lack of credits, it can't be used to verify whether or not David Mallet directed the video and should be supplemented by an additional source or replaced.
 * Added a ref that's from IMVDb – a reliable source, which is mentioning that Mallet directed the video.
 * ✅ Looks good.


 * See comment about linking under General Comments.
 * Was fixed above.
 * ✅ Looks good.

Release and reception
Looks good except for a broken source. I would recommend a complete review of the sources used to support certification and ranking claims in this section, I can do this when I can find the time or you could.
 * Removed the source in its entirety. Reviewed the entire thing and it looks like it's fine. Made a few tweaks, mentioning the reviewer's names.
 * ✅ Looks good.

Track listing
Looks good.

Personnel
Looks good but I would recommend including songwriting credits here.
 * Done.
 * ✅ Looks good.

Charts
Looks good.

Certifications
Looks good.

Release history
Looks good.

Source Spot Check

 * Citation 4 is broken
 * Was fixed above.


 * ✅ Sounds good.


 * Citation 6 looks good


 * Citation 9 looks good


 * Citation 11 looks good but please see my first comment under Recording and Composition.
 * Was fixed above.


 * ✅ Sounds good.


 * Citation 16 please see comment under Recording and Composition regarding using music video as a source.
 * Was fixed above.


 * ✅ Sounds good.


 * Citation 18 looks good


 * Citation 19 looks good


 * Citation 25 looks good


 * Citation 29 looks good


 * Citation 30 looks good


 * Citation 30 looks good
 * You said say that twice – did you mean citation 30 or 40?
 * Neither I just copied and pasted each line and changed the number, looks like I pasted it an extra time by accident.
 * Ah well, minor mistake.


 * Citation 42 does not support claims the web page appears to be broken
 * Removed the cert entirely.
 * ✅ Sounds good.


 * Citation 46 looks good


 * Citation 51 looks good


 * Citation 66 looks good


 * Citation 71 looks good


 * Citation 57 looks good


 * Citation 59 looks good


 * Citation 45 looks good


 * Citation 36 looks good


 * Citation 35 looks good


 * Citation 23 looks good


 * Citation 24 looks good

Plagiarism check
No obvious plagiarism