Talk:Unfinished Music No. 2: Life with the Lions/GA1

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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 05:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Currently reading. Will come back in a few minutes with anything I see.


 * Lead paragraph seems like a random series of ideas; only vaguely resembles the true purpose of a WP:LEAD. Also has a few issues with informal language (e.g. Zapple Records instead of Zapple, "thanks to Aspen magazine" - a little too informal).
 * You don't need to specify that Lennon was a Beatle. "Beatle John Lennon" is awkward.
 * "With Ono's Grapefruit in mind, Lennon and Ono had imagined that the sound wasn't printed into the vinyl's grooves, but was meant to be thought of by the listener's mind." I have no idea what this is trying to say.
 * Background section seems a little disorganized; for example, were the tracks released through Aspen magazine actually used on the album in the same form? If so, this seems like it needs to be mentioned further along in the album's history.
 * "Concepts from Fluxus art have been used for the album; Ono has used ideas from it before." This is an album that came out in 1969. Is the present past tense necessary here?
 * The sentence that immediately follows seems to suffer from comma splicing and is a run-on.
 * "The original version of the piece was longer." This part seems awkwardly inserted as if a better way hasn't yet been conceived. Or maybe it's saying the piece as it was performed at that concert was an edited version of a piece that was longer on paper? This needs to be clarified.
 * ""Two Minutes Silence" follows; made as a tribute to composer John Cage's 4'33" in that, similar to Cage's avant garde composition, though Lennon and Ono's track is completely silent." This seems really cumbersome; are you just trying to say that Lennon and Ono made a track of silence as an homage to one made by John Cage? The point isn't entirely clear.
 * "It is not known if the song was meant as a memorial for John Ono Lennon II." Forgive me if there is some part of the story at play here that I am not familiar with, but this seems unimportant. If it has importance, as in if the public had reason to suspect this, you'll have to put that in here.
 * "An edited version of this recording was released on the flexi record that was with given away with Apsen." Needs some copyediting.
 * "A record company had suggest I do an album of my sort of freak-type freestyle things, one of which was Song For John." If this was reproduced with the error ("suggest" rather than "suggested") taken directly from the original, this needs to be noted with . (I'd check it myself except it's a print source I don't have.)
 * "Ono later did a re-make of the song for her album Approximately Infinite Universe." More informal phrasing; I believe this should be, "Ono later re-recorded the song..."
 * Starting the Reception section now. If the title of the album, and of the previous album, has a space in "No. 2", this needs to be consistently used throughout the article.
 * Again, "Zapple" should probably be "Zapple Records".
 * Phrasing's a bit awkward in the second sentence.
 * I think it should say, "Lennon was disappointed that Apple did not promote the album at all." Try to avoid contractions in formal writing.
 * "The album's original inner sleeve was printed with the song titles and the names of the musicians for each track." Again, I don't see the importance of this information. Many album sleeves/inserts are printed this way.
 * "A reissue included, instead of the inner sleeve, a four-page sheet with lyrics." First of all, spelling error, second of all, when and where was this released? Why is this important? If it was also released in Japan, please don't leave things like this to the reader to infer. This isn't entirely obvious, and while we shouldn't have to spoon-feed information to readers, it's only reasonable that we meet them halfway.
 * All of the information about the front and back covers (including the above snippet about what was on the inner sleeve if it has importance that I've missed) should be presented in a section above this one, its own if possible.
 * Last paragraph in the article seems like it was smooshed together just to make for a longer paragraph, when each paragraph in the article should only focus on one central idea - you went from the packaging details to a handful of reviews. On that note, a handful of paragraphs in the article seem to suffer from similar problems, of needing more paragraph breaks than they have but needing expansion thereafter (to prevent the article from not covering the album in enough depth), and of being somewhat incoherent in the way the ideas themselves are organized, almost as if each part was only written as it was thought of with no attempt made to arrange it coherently.

Compliments? Well, if I can give one, it's that the "Recording and content" section does a great job of describing both each song and how it was recorded side-by-side. Very well done there, save for the issues I noted above.

Unfortunately, comparing notes with the review for Unfinished Music No. 1: Two Virgins, it seems both articles are in need of more work. It's a few steps away from me being able to put it on hold for a few days so the issues can be fixed. This article seems to suffer from many of the same problems as the first one. Add to that details that seem like they need to be rearranged extensively if they bear any mention at all, and I can't say I could pass this article in good conscience. Feel free to have my verdict reassessed, but right now the verdict is nomination failed. Please try again later.