Wikipedia:Peer review/Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall/archive1

Rufus Does Judy at Carnegie Hall

 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.
 * A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for February 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed. I've listed this article for peer review because I would like to eventually nominate it for FA status. Before doing so, I would like any feedback regarding how the article can be improved. As far as I know, the article follows WikiProject Albums guidelines, and I have used other FA-Class album articles as examples. Feel free to comment on grammar, parts that need to be expanded/reduced, additional subjects that need to be addressed, etc.--essentially any way the make it better. Thanks! -Whataworld06 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: I would just like to point out that this album article is unlike many others in that this live album is the product of two tribute concerts, so there is a lot of information about the concerts and other aspects surrounding the album. The CD consists of cover songs performed by Judy Garland in 1961, so there is less focus on the songs themselves (since they are not originally by Wainwright). While the album was not highly successful in terms of sales, I don't think that should be held against the quality of the article, which I hope is still an interesting and informative read. Thanks! -Whataworld06 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch comments: Seems quite well done overall, here are some suggestions for improvement, mostly nitpicks and a few ideas for slight expansion.
 * Comment: Thank you. I appreciate your time, assistance, and suggestions!


 * Would it make sense to list the 36 musicians (if known) in the orchestra in the Personnel section?
 * Comment: It would, but unfortunately the musicians are not listed in the album's liner notes nor at online sources like Allmusic. The musicians listed currently in the Personnel section are all that can be found.


 * The album cover seems to be a parody / tribute of the original Garland poster - could this be made clearer than just a mention in the T-shirts sentence?
 * Done. Added "Like the shirts sold by Marc Jacobs, much of the promotional material mimicked posters used for Garland's concert years before" to end of promotion section. I will see if I can add a promotional poster used for Wainwright's concert.


 * Presumably the CD contains songs from both nights - if it is known which night a track was recorded, should that be included?
 * Comment: Unfortunately, the liner notes do not indicate which performance the songs were recorded from.


 * Now for the nitpicks, first in the lead. Is it usual to say "released under Geffen Records"? To my ear "released by Geffen Records" or perhaps "released under the Geffen Records label" sound better.
 * Comment: I have been told in the past "under" is the proper term to use, though I can see where you are coming from. I will see if the same comment/suggestion is made through the FA nomination process.


 * This sounds really odd Backed by a 36-piece orchestra under the conduction of Stephen Oremus, would it sound better to say "conducted by Stephen Oremus"?
 * Done.


 *  Her double album, Judy at Carnegie Hall, a comeback performance with more than 25 American pop and jazz standards, was highly successful, which initially spent 95 weeks on the Billboard charts and garnered five Grammy Awards (including Album of the Year, Best Album Cover, Best Solo Vocal Performance - Female, and Best Engineering Contribution - Popular Recording).[3][4] This is a very long sentence and could perhaps be split into two. If it is not split, the "which" seems odd. I understand it, but it just stops the flow of the sentence. I also think this should be in the article (lead is a summary of the article) but do not see it there. Related point - is all this detail on Garland's album needed in the lead? Couldn't the specific awards her album won be in the article?
 * Comment: I kept one sentence, but removed "which" and changed the tense to "spending" and "garnering". I hope this reads better.


 * I now realize there should be a few sentences on Garland's concert and album in the article, probably as part of the Conception and development section
 * I think the lead should mention the other four concerts this led to / inspired, could also make a smoother transition to the DVD release
 * The article uses cquote but according the documentation at Template:Cquote this is for pull quotes only, and this should probably use blockquote instead.
 * Done. I think the way you suggested looks better as well.


 * Unclear what time frame this is referring to - presumably pre-concert publicity? As written by Gaby Wood of The Guardian, Wainwright "sparkled on the cover of Time Out New York" and was "adored in the pages of The New York Times".[18]
 * Done. The first sentence mentions the success of the tribute concerts, and the sentence you quoted above now mentions "following the Carnegie Hall concerts".


 * The list of celebrities might be have problems at FAC. One question I have is why are they listed in the order that they are in now - not alphabetical, not sure what the reason is for their order. Another more serious concern is notability - several of the Carnegie Hall people do not have articles on them (presumably), so why are they notable enough to be listed here? For the European concerts it might help to say who was there in London and who in Paris.
 * Done. Non-notable celebrities removed. Notable celebrities now in alphabetical order based on last name. Only Marc Jacobs and Viktor & Rolf are not listed in the cannon because they are linked in the previous paragraph.


 * Intentionally flubbed lyrics needs a ref
 * Perhaps [Although it is] No longer common to have orchestras so large (Oremus acknowledged that even Wicked on Broadway only had 22 pieces), Wainwright and Oremus insisted the full 36-piece ensemble should be utilized to create "as exact a replica as [they could] muster".[13] reads better?
 * Done.


 * I would say Garland instead of She in She always had a large base of fans in the gay community. and perhaps combine this with the next sentence, so Garland always had a large base of fans in the gay community, which includes Wainwright, who identifies as gay and came out to his parents at the age of 14.[32] 
 * Done.


 * I think by MOS See also should go at the top of the section
 * Done.


 * Chart performance ... is a pretty short section - could it be combined with Critical reception as just "Reception"?
 * Comment: I thought the chart performance section should always be separate. Since the album only received one award nomination, I thought it would be appropriate to throw it there as well. I will see if the same suggestion is made during FA nomination.

Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 21:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)