Talk:The Age of Adz/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: James086 (talk · contribs) 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Criterion 1: Looks good, the prose is definitely clear and meets MOS.
• Criterion 2: I'm assuming all of the sources are reliable ones, I'm not familiar with music sources, but I recognise a fair portion of them as reliable and those that I don't recognise hold similar views of the album.
• Criterion 3: It looks like there's a paragraph missing from Themes. It only says that it's different to previous albums, nothing about what the themes of this album are. There is a sentence in the lead and also the 2nd paragraph in Background is kind of related, but I think it needs to be properly expanded. This needs to be addressed before I can pass it.
• Criterion 4: It's neutral and stable.
• Criterion 5: The album cover has a good FUR. The song sample really does add understanding and also has an appropriate rationale. Also the image of Stevens performing is well linked to the content of the article, even though it's free.

The only issue that needs addressing is the Themes section. On hold until then. James086^Talk 14:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Oh one other thing, it's not clear the role that Shara Worden plays. I assume that it's vocals but I think that should be made clear. James086^Talk 14:18, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• Appreciate the review. Shara Worden's role is mentioned earlier as backing vocals and a solo on the respective song, but I've repeated the information for Personnel. Will shortly add some more on Themes. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, sorry I must have forgotten reading that in the background section! James086^Talk 15:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

• No problem. I've doubled the size of the Themes section and in that are some of the biggest themes of the album. Is that sufficient, in your opinion, or is more required? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a sufficient expansion to call the article comprehensive. Nice work! James086^Talk 12:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)