Talk:Bionic (Christina Aguilera album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-review comments

Hi Ending-start and all the associated reviewers, I will be reviweing Bionic. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As part of the quick-fail check, I found numerous dead links within the article. I am sorry, but I will only give two days to sort through the dead links, before I start the actual review on the article. No dab links. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it. But you know what's weird, the links are correct but they have like periods, or other things on the end making them not work. :/ Sounds like vandalism gone unnoticed. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 20:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It happends dude, i know it sucks! Those bloody IPs. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Now, now. WP:HUMAN Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

IPs are disruptive low-life's. Don't agree? Bite me. Or go see Jay-Z's woohoo, bwahahaha. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL yeah. It doesn't make any sense. I'm for having to sign up to edit. I got the article protected because of all the edits, so that's all good for now on here. xD And all the links have been fixed now. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 11:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Review almost done, will come up by tonight. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. :) ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 21:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

The review

• Regretfully, Ending-start you have to give the article a whole brush-up in terms of formatting of the references. I noticed many of them not using the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} template. This is of utmost importance as if a linkrot happens, H3LBot won't be able to update or tag that link. And you will never know how to replace the link.
• A number of online sources are italiacized, and vice-versa. Be careful while formatting as to what you put in the work and publisher parameters.
• No mention of language in references from non-English speaking nations and bolding of reference titles are not allowed.
• Work names like Nypost.com, Popwatch.ew.com, Artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com are absolutely unacceptable.

lead

• The whole lead doesnot conform to WP:LEAD, it is frankly too short.
• as well crossing over from several different musical styles including R&B, pop, electropop, and synthpop. --> Who crossed over? It appears as if the producers crossed over. Y

Background

• Already during the --> Why already? It did not change later, did it? So just start "During the Asian..." Y
• After the birth of her son, Christina stated --> Last name, not first name Y

Recording

• The whole first para, please correct the usage or rather the non-usage of commas. Y
• for Aguilera's fourth studio album --> We know by this point that it is the fourth studio album. Y
• Replace usage of Sia with the last name. Y
• Repetitions of adjectives are filled in this section. How many times you introduce the bands as UK or British?
• team The Neptunes are working with --> They are not working now, so change to were Y
• Blogger Perez Hilton declared on his own Twitter account that Aguilera is working with the band Le Tigre, later confirmed by Aguilera in her E! Special,[17] an American dance-punk band known for its socio-political lyrics, dealing with issues of feminism and the LGBT community --> Please rephrase Y
• chart-topping Hip-Hop artist Flo Rida --> Lol, really? remove chart-topping per NPOV. Y
• Tricky Stewart --> Stewart Y
• For 'Vogue', the single quotes will be inside the fullstop.

Music Y Removed whole section, as it's just repetitive.

• in 2006 Yahoo! & Nissan Live Sets --> in the 2006
• Acutally no, the whole section is the background and part of the development of the album. I don't see any music related content in it, which would analyze the music and the songs. Please merge, or add the correct content.
• And why is everything a repetition of Christina wanted this and that sound? You should emphaize on what she ultimately did in terms of the songs whcih are present.

Promotion

• A new song titled "Woohoo" featuring rapper Nicki Minaj, and written by Aguilera with Claude Kelly and "Not Myself Tonight" collaborators Polow da Don and Ester Dean was posted on Aguilera's official YouTube channel on May 7, 2010. Aguilera was also featured on the June cover of GQ Germany,[26] the June/July cover of Latina[27] and the June cover of Out.[28] --> This is so confusing! Please chop it up Y
• This section just constitutes a list of the venues and the dates of her performance. Surely there must be some critical commentary of the performanes? I do remember some of it, like the woohoo glow heart, the vampire like dresses, the backtrack additions. Im sure you can fill it up. At present it appears bland.
• English singer --> British singer Y
• The end is kinda incomplete as in did Aguilera announce anything regarding the revival of the tour? Because 2011 is almost here and Burlesque is already released. Y

Singles

• Internationally, the track was a moderate commercial success, peaking at number twelve in the United Kingdom[42] and peaking in the top thirty in Austria and Australia as well as peaking in the top forty in New Zealand and Sweden --> Continuous usage of peaking, peaking, peaking Y
• A music sample would do the section more justice, since if you are not able to add the composition that section is gone. Y
• The track was comparatively less commercially successful than the album's previous single --> comparatively less successful? One word, flop. Y
• series of connected vignettes --> link vignettes Y and explain a bit more
• The song topped the Hot Dance Club Songs chart, making the second single from Bionic to do so --> which one top thechart be4? Woohoo or NMT? Y

Critical reception

• I'm impressed by the flow of this section
• Wikilink Alexis Petridis in both the section and reference.
• Wikilink Stephen Thomas Erlewine in the allmusic reference.
• No need of Billboard magazine.

Commercial

• Bionic has struggled on the charts in many international markets --> Makes it sound like Bionic is an entity. Try something better, "Bionic has had trouble in maintaining a consistent commercial performance in the international markets". Y
• Although its low sales, the album set ranks as the year's 76th-best-selling US album --> The album ranked as the year's 76th-best-selling US album. We already know from the prior sentence that the album is a low seller. Y
• although with 24,000 copies sold it became the lowest selling UK number one album in eight years --> should be preceded by a semi-colon. Y
• UK chart history --> The term "creating history" is used generally for something positive. However, the term has been modified and degraded by the media to glorify upon someone's underperformance as well. WP is not a media, so usage of the term "created history" should be removed, as frankly, enough flak came towards Aguilera for the UK underperformance. We dont need to glorify it more.
• Bionic fared somewhat better on mainland Europe --> OR? Y
• The line from where you start talking about the Australian Albums, should be made into a new section Y
• Bionic experienced similar commercial outcomes throughout the rest of Europe --> repetition Y

Personnel

• Nothing wrong here, but you can probably make the section as col-3, as for col-2 the section appears unnaturally stretched for users with screen resolution 800X600.

Chart procession

• Link Greece albums to IFPI Greece Y
• Remove the overlink from the Oasis album Y

Release history

• Just a suggestion, you can get all the catalogue numbers from the master link of Discogs.

Images

• File:Christina Aguilera - Bionic.jpg needs to be reduced to 300x300. Y
• I am sure there were some reports regarding the unusual cover image, some critical commentary. After all, its Aguilera's first studio album in 4 years, expectations were high.

I am placing the article on hold for seven days, allowing the nominator to make changes. After that I will decide the outcome of the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 10:15, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Post-review comments

The lead is still not conforming to WP:LEAD. You need to extend it more, try making it three paras. You need to hurry up a little. :) — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

These comments are intended for the reviewer to take into consideration. Sources for chart positions are in the chart table, but no sources exist in the procession. The UK source provides a chart date of June 19, 2010, but it says it was #1 from 13-20 June. That also implies two weeks at #1 going by chart dates, which succession boxes typically use, but it seems to have been #1 for only one week. Sources will be needed to confirm the preceding and succeeding #1s. As navigational boxes, succession boxes are also typically placed at the bottom of articles per WP:FOOTERS. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware of what you are saying Starcheers, thanks anyways. I am actually waiting for the consensus for the succession boxes, and for the nominator to address the concerns, though he seems to be MIA from this one. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 03:29, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The discussion on the succession boxes is determining whether they should even be used on articles such as this. That doesn't stop the information within them from needing to being accurate and properly sourced to pass a GA review, does it? Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:47, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not comment on the succession boxes at all, because I believe by the time this review will end, there will be a consensus as to whether keep or remove them. Doesn't make sense if I ask the nominator to correct them now, and then suddenly they are removed, already enough burden is on him. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

What are teh updates on the reviews? I can still see so many issues. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 12:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been working on it the best I could. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 18:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

And I don't know how you can see many issues, I've fixed pretty much all of them. ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 18:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage of the utterly disgusting "#" to denote numbers, the lead is still not conforming to WP:LEAD since you fail to mention the promotions at all, I can still see online sources being italicized, printed media being non-italicized, languages missing from the non-English references, unformatted references. On top of that, I rechecked with each and every point I made about the prose, I could see either you did not understand some of them, or you forgot to change them. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:36, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a single place in the article that uses "#" so I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm gonna go through the review again, and check off which things I did and see what's left to do. I really don't understand a lot what you were saying, so I skipped to ones I could. xD ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 05:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

In the lead. And if you don't understand anything, please ask them, so that I don't have to post that you havent done that particular thing. I don't know whether you have promoted any GAs yet, but the standard has really increased and reviewers like me are really nitpicky about perfection. Sorry if it bothers you, but in the long run it will help the article only. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed it. I just saw it. :P I haven't really nominated an article for a GA before, so I'm a bit confused by some of things you've been saying need to be changed. And I am rather quite new at this, so some terms make no sense to me. Mainly these parts: "I can still see online sources being italicized, printed media being non-italicized, languages missing from the non-English references, unformatted references." ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 05:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

All references should use the {{cite web}} or {{cite news}} templates, hence anyone not using it, gives a bare http url in the references section. You have to format them then.

Now, printed sources like Rap-Up, Billboard, Rolling Stone etc should be withing the work parameter of the reference template and they will appear italicized automatically, and online sources like Almusic, MTV, BBC etc should be placed within the publisher parameter, and they will appear non-italicized. This is as per the MOS of WP, which states that prionted sources should come as italicized and non-printed/online sources as non-italicized. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 06:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry but I dont think I can give any more time. The article is so close to meeting the GA standard, but its a bummer dude that you are leaving things unfinished, things I pointed out specifically. Please renominate it again when you finish off with these changes since you did not ask for an extension also and its well past the seven day period. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 18:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was going to ask for some more time, but I knew I wouldn't have gotten it all done, or got a chance to do it in time. I will keep working at it, and nominate it again quite soon. :) Thanks! ΣПDiПG–STΛЯT 17:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)