Talk:Tommy (The Who album)/GA2

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah well, with that out of the way, I guess I'll take over from here. FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Under Sales certifications, you have citation for one number, not the other two. Any reason for this?
 * That's because the sales figures for the UK and the US are approximations based on the certification based on the source. We could remove the "units" column entirely if that would be better. I suspect this table was once bigger but the reliable source police probably paid a visit ;-) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Could the middle two paragraphs under get citations? I know the source is above and below, but it would keep anyone from wondering if a citation was missing.
 * Okay. Normally plot summaries are verifiable to the work in question, but for Tommy that's not the case as the story is so vague. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Is the synopsis here a direct quote?
 * No, it's based on the reproduction of the synopsis in Atkins' book, but rewritten to avoid close phrasing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be easier for uninitiated readers if the synopsis came after the background section? This isn't a film article, after all, though I can see why you would structure it similarly.
 * Interesting question. The synopsis was up front when I first started work on the album, and I did think of moving it, but I recall when I first heard Tommy about 30 years ago (crikey, time flies) the first thing I noticed was the connection between songs (ie: "deaf, dumb and blind" and "pinball"), and the second was, "what's the storyline". It wasn't until a long time later that I realised that I was far from the only one who didn't understand the plot! So with that in mind, I figured it would be an important bit of information that readers would be looking for, and hence go reasonably up front. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "The opera was abandoned after a single song" What is meant? After a single song was recorded?
 * Not so much recorded as written and recorded. Changed to "written", the mention of "hit single" implies it was subsequently recorded. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  14:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm fairly sure contractions are considered unencyclopaedic writing, so will remove them as I encounter them.
 * "got so fed up of" Seems a bit too informal?
 * Changed to "impatient" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "The group were still coming up with new material; Lambert insisted that the piece should have a proper overture,[34] while Townshend wrote "Pinball Wizard" so that Nik Cohn, a pinball fan, would give the album a favourable review in the New York Times." The three issues seem rather unconnected, but not sure how else to write it, certainly better than three short sentences.
 * I'm not sure what I can do about that other than redo the entire paragraph. The information needs to be in there to be "broad in coverage" - the overture and Pinball Wizard were written fairly late in recording, which supports the narrative that the group were working things out as they went along. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "and that The Who would make a more substantial version with Quadrophenia" Version of what?
 * Rewritten this bit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Tommy did not mix rock with European music" Is classical meant by European? Is this a common term?
 * I think "classical" will do - I have seen "European" used to mean anything that isn't based on the blues in any way shape or form. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Daltrey's voice had improved substantially" Since/compared to what?
 * The source doesn't say, but I've gone with "since the group's early tours". <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "Townshend plays some guitar, but otherwise the music is predominantly orchestral" Everything else is in past tense, so why present tense here?
 * Fixed <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "A cover of "One Room Country Shack" was also recorded and considered for inclusion" Why is this under the deluxe edition tracklist?
 * I think the idea was it was an outtake, but still not included on the rerelease. I've moved it up to the "recording" section. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "The film was released with a multichannel hi-fi soundtrack and many major cinemas" I'm not sure what is meant, in?
 * Rewritten this bit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "The film and its soundtrack album feature six new songs, all written by Townshend, and an alteration to the general sequence of existing songs is also changed. The CD reissue of the film soundtrack also included an additional Overture." Another weird mix of tenses.
 * Rewritten this bit. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * "In 1998, the album was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame for "historical, artistic and significant value"." This is only mentioned in the intro, but there should be no unique info in that, so needs to be added to the article itself.
 * Good catch. I've reorganised this, and trimmed down the mention in the lead as the body now covers it more fully. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Changes look good, is there a way "Though later released as a single, "See Me, Feel Me" was not a track in its own right on the original album." could be incorporated into the text? It kind of irks me a bit that there's a single footnote hanging there, which seems as important as many other details of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How's that? I think I originally anticipated a few more footnotes, but none turned up. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:05, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright! Then I guess I can't do much other than pass this article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a quick and diligent review as ever! <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks you guys! I was away longer than expected. Thanks for all the work! Dcs002 (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)