Talk:Tommy (The Who album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: In ictu oculi (talk · contribs) 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)


 *  Title needs fixing  - the title is currently at odds with Naming conventions (music). I don't really see how an article can be a good article if it is titled contrary to the project's titling guidelines. More on lyrics re content the body of the album could use some more judicious mention (and citation) of the actual lyrics. It's not wholly a rock opera, but near enough that the convention of musicals/rock operas that the lyrics be given more attention than on a themeless bundle of songs which is what most albums are. Otherwise it's an example of the best an album article can be. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have a stance in the ongoing naming dispute, you should probably recuse from doing GA review on it, if you're going to make that an issue in the GA review; it's a conflict of interest (in the normal sense, not our special WP:COI sense). GA is for reviewing article content.  Any GA (or FA) can be renamed in ways that conflict with WP:AT or a guideline, without any effect at all on GA/FA status, since it's an unrelated problem to be fixed by a different process.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have a view on increase of lyrics in all music articles, this is a better example than most others. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The excessive paranoia of some WMF legal people needn't translate into a general Wikipedian fear of quoting lyrics, which seems to be why there is so much reticence to do this throughout the project. About 90% of our song and album articles studiously avoid lyrical analysis and only address production and public/critical response.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A title renaming dispute can affect the "Stability" section of the good article criteria only if it affects the article itself - constructive talk page comments (which the RM discussion is) are okay. I've added a bit more about the lyrical content, though there's not much to say other than a general feeling of "it's complicated". When Abbie Hoffman tried to stop the Woodstock gig to say "I think this is a pile of shit while John Sinclair rots in prison", he probably wasn't talking about the confusing narrative! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What's happening with this? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  08:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My $.02 (and that's all it's worth) is that I would prefer to see all the lists (including the track lists) below the prose. That's what I'm used to seeing in other articles (usually about less prominent albums). I am still learning album article standards, so I don't know if that's a real standard or just my preference. Second, there are a few stylistic and grammatical writing issues that I would be happy to clean up. As a copy editor I am much better than a writer, and I think I can help out there, but I'm always hesitant to make changes like that on major album articles because it seems someone is always following right behind to revert things, and I just don't want to get into that over stylistic issues. But I think these issues should be addressed before GA status. (One example is the ending of the last sentence in the first lead paragraph: "...that tells the story about a deaf, dumb and blind boy, including his experiences with life, and the relationship with his family." I would rewrite as "...that tells the story of a deaf, dumb and blind boy, his vulnerabilities to abuse, his family's attempts to find a cure, and his role as a spiritual leader after he is cured." The phrase "including his experiences with life, and the relationship with his family" doesn't add anything very meaningful to the description of the album. It also has an unnecessary comma.) Dcs002 (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've put the track listing at the bottom. Stuff like misplaced commas are exactly the things a GA review should pick up (it's a matter of taste whether you do minor uncontentious things yourself or ask the nominator to do them). I don't agree with expanding the description of the plot, which is well known for being vague anyway, and is only one of several important facets to put in the lead. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  07:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I can shrink that: "...that follows the life of a deaf, dumb and blind boy, his cure, and what becomes of him after he is cured." I'd just like each sentence to mean something, to be accurate, and to be easily readable. (I've been sick lately & haven't been around to participate much.) I agree on keeping the plot minimal in the lead. Thanks for moving the list. Dcs002 (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Where did the reviewer go? I can see he has been active in the meantime. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the review was already open and I was just commenting. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd expect a reviewer to provide a list of improvements that have to be made to the article for it to pass the GA criteria? Right now I barely see any suggestions. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said I thought the review was already open and I was just commenting. It's easy to do with a transcluded template. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works, by starting the review, you commit to reviewing the whole thing. If you only want to comment briefly, you have to wait until an actual reviewer starts a review. Note that you are listed as the reviewer at the top of this page. FunkMonk (talk) 22:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's an trap in the template footer that makes inadvertently (re)starting a review possible. I didn't realise this as I hadn't been caught by it before. Do you understand what I'm saying? In ictu oculi (talk) 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the review needs to be reset then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

FunkMonk, if you want to reset this and take over the review, I've got no objections. We can either carry on using GA1 as now and just change the templates, or I can "fail" this review so it can be renominated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  10:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)