Talk:This England (album)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Reminders
Extended content
|
|---|
--Another Believer (Talk) 16:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
|
GA Review
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:This England (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Albacore (talk · contribs) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- I will review this article shortly. Albacore (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Comments
- No DAB links, according to our tool [1] a few links will go dead in the future, so it might be worth wile to archive them. Outside of the GA criteria, of course.
- I am not sure how to archive links. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- File:This England, Oregon Symphony.jpg says it needs a FUR. I don't know if that applies to this article, but it is worth checking out. The other three files are OK, but it's odd that only the right-most file of the three is clickable.
- So something needs to be added that does not already exist within the "Non-free media information and use rationale" summary? I have been editing WP for years and I still don't fully understand FUR and image upload requirements! Happy to make any required changes if provided more specificity... --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, and I added the link3 parameter to the template so that not only the third image is clickable. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The lead seems wordy and runs on in spots, can you split or simplify some of the sentences?
- I split one of the sentences into two. Better? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Can you link "interlude"?
- To what? Interlude itself is a disambiguation page. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Portland Mercury invited people from the city's music scene to list "Portland's Top Five Records of 2012"; the reviewer known as "Angry Symphony Guy" (Brian Horay)[26] included This England at the top of his list. what is meant by "music scene"? Seems idiomatic to me.
- Good point. Now reads: "The Portland Mercury invited local music industry professionals to list..." --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Otherwise, the article seems very well-written and easily passes the GA criteria. Albacore (talk) 19:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking time to review this article. Happy to address any additional concerns you may have. --Another Believer (Talk) 22:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pass. Albacore (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
- Pass. Albacore (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
COI
In accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide, I have chosen to disclose that I have a personal connection to this subject. I will spare details, but my main purpose in writing this article is to benefit Wikipedia and its mission. I believe this article is written from a neutral perspective and has been constructed from independent, reliable sources. The second link above provides the following summary, which I believe I have followed appropriately:
- Be transparent about your conflict of interest (
Done) - Subjects require significant coverage in independent reliable sources. ( Done)
- Your role is to inform and reference, not promote or sell. ( Done)
- Be extremely cautious about the risks of editing articles about yourself or your clients ( Done|N/A)
- If writing a draft, write without bias, as if you don't work for the company or personally know the subject. ( Done)
- State facts and statistics, don't be vague or general. ( Done)
- Take time to get sources and policy right. ( Done)
- Get neutral, uninvolved, disinterested editors to review your draft.
(
Doing...) Done - Work with the community and we'll work with you.
( Doing...) Done - Communicate, communicate, communicate.
( Doing...) Done
My goal is to promote this article to Good status. I understand this will require review and assistance from other members of the community, which is great. I invite all to examine this article carefully to make sure the content is fair and accurate. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I believe this article now meets Good article criteria. I have submitted a request for a copy edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. The Good article reviewer is more than welcome to wait until after the copy edit has been completed, if preferable. Thank you. --Another Believer (Talk) 16:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Live album?
On my talk page, User:Jennica wrote: "I have to wonder why This England (album) isn't considered a live album? It says 'performances', and wasn't recorded in a studio. Why is this? --Jennica✿ / talk 10:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)" I am posting the comment here for further discussion. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:11, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Jennica: I am not opposed to categorizing this album as "live", but I didn't go with 'live' before in order to be consistent with the other classical albums I've written about. "Live" vs. "studio" never came up during the peer reviews for Good article nominations for:
Joseph Schwantner: New Morning for the World; Nicolas Flagello: The Passion of Martin Luther King, Orchestral Works by Tomas Svoboda, Tragic Lovers, 
Music for a Time of War, Spirit of the American Range, all of which are categorized as "classical albums". I'm not sure where classical recordings fit in the live vs. studio spectrum, but I do think we should be consistent. ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Release party
I quite liked the sentence about the album release party but the one that Another Believer removed during the FA nomination process. I was wondering that, now that the album stays at GA standard, it would be okay to include again? Or is the article left best as it is? --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 14:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- @TangoTizerWolfstone: I thought the release party was relevant, too, but trimming often takes place at FAC. The reason I withdrew the nomination was because one editor was asking for A LOT of trimming, more than I was comfortable doing. I'm not sure what to do at this point. I had hoped to get more feedback at FAC. ---Another Believer (Talk) 16:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: Do you mind if I reintroduce the line about the release party or would you prefer me not to? --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @TangoTizerWolfstone: You are welcome to reintroduce. ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:49, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Another Believer: Do you mind if I reintroduce the line about the release party or would you prefer me not to? --TangoTizerWolfstone (talk) 13:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Done