Talk:The Sea (Corinne Bailey Rae album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Carbrera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

 * The album cover image requires an alt description, so please add one
 * Please remove the following unused parameter: "Longtype"

Paragraph 1

 * Good!

Paragraph 2

 * "In the United Kingdom, The Sea debuted at number five on the UK Albums Chart and was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)." --> "The Sea was commercially successful, peaking within the top ten of several countries. In the United Kingdom, The Sea debuted at number five on the UK Albums Chart and was certified gold by the British Phonographic Industry (BPI)."


 * I wouldn't revise it that way. The lead is a summary of the body's most important parts, and it "peaking within the top ten of several countries" isn't discussed at all; it only did that in the US and UK, which doesn't necessarily make it several nor commercially successful. How much money went into making and promoting it vs. its sales would determine that. Dan56 (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

 * You can remove reference #4 after "Rae pursued a sound more aggressive than on her debut." as you just previously cited it
 * Rest is great and expertly–written; fantastic work!! :) :)
 * Done, and thanks Dan56 (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 2

 * All of this belongs in a separate section, titled something along the lines of "Commercial performance" of "Chart performance"
 * But there's literally just two sentences discussing how it performed sales-wise, followed by two discussing Rae touring, so I'm not sure that would be conducive to this article. Marketing and performance often go hand in hand, and when there isn't enough material for a full-fledged section of its own, it's recommended to merge material into a related section(s) (MOS:ALBUM). Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd add a topic/lead–in sentence to this section as well, stating something along the lines of "the album was commercially successful... yada yada yada."
 * That's subjective and requires a source; her last album sold millions internationally, so by what standards would this be a success? What's verifiable should speak for itself (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), and readers can decide for themselves how successful they thought it was. Dan56 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Paragraph 3

 * Generally, the "Metacritic" score appears in the first paragraph of the "Reception" section; I'd add it there if I were you

Track listing

 * There should be a headline differentiating the standard edition of the album from the Japanese (or deluxe) version(s) of the album; you can use This Is What the Truth Feels Like as an example, I think you'll see what I mean
 * You need to cite each edition additionally
 * After the first appearance of a musician, writer, or producer on album's track listing, you only need to list his/her last name; so from tracks #2–#12, you only need to list "Rae", "Brown", etc., for the "Producer(s)" column
 * It isn't necessarily a particular "edition" but the 11 tracks on all releases, which being "standard" is obvious enough not to need a headline for it; it's implied simply by being under "Track listing". Credits are already attributed to the liner notes in Personnel, but I added a citation for the bonus tracks. Dan56 (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Personnel

 * All good!

Weekly charts

 * You need to use the chart formatting per Template:Single chart

Year–end charts

 * Same here (Template:Single chart.)
 * Forgive me, but where does it say using such templated chart citations is a requirement? There are drawbacks, such as the database/source automatically cited not being up to date and missing chart info available elsewhere. Also, it creates citation clutter, adding a number of citations for each chart when there are Hung Medien-published sources, for example, that have most European country chartings available on one page (such as this) Also, the chart names wouldn't be consistent in using denomonyms (i.e. American Albums Chart, Irish Albums Chart, etc.) Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the charts are not being called by their proper names. The US Billboard 200 is never referred to as the "American Albums Chart" and the UK OCC Albums chart is never referred to as the "British Albums Chart". Carbrera (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's not true ; "UK Albums" has never even been its actual chart name, which would be the "Official Albums Chart". WP:MOS says articles must be consistent internally in style, and it would be inconsistent to use denomonyms for every chart except the American and British charts. And I still don't see any guideline or page that says this template is a requirement . Dan56 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But still, the "American Albums Chart" has a name. It would also be incorrect to state that when the official name is Billboard 200. Carbrera (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , how is that any less correct than any of the other National chart outputs I see at the template page?, all of which seem like Americanized/Wikipedia-ized (unofficial) titles for those charts (the actual name of the "French Albums" chart at SNEP's website appears to be "Top Albums", but that's not what's rendered by the template). Dan56 (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But at least it lists the publisher of the chart in addition to the country. Carbrera (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why is that relevant to readers of this article? I'm not seeing any concrete benefits, and this discussion seems to be boiling down to stylistic preference. Dan56 (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I think on this particular issue, we should just agree to disagree. Since this is the only thing keeping the article from passing GA, I will be passing it, but I urge you to consider what I spoke of when it comes to the album templates. I mean, they were created for a reason. Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 18:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC).

End of GA Review:
Another expertly–written article! I would love to pass this after you make just a few minor changes and tweeks to it! Thanks so much for the review; like I've said in the past, please contact me if you need anything! Cheers, Carbrera (talk) 22:02, 23 June 2016 (UTC).


 * , I fixed some things and responded to others. Dan56 (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)