Talk:12 Songs of Christmas (Etta James album)/Archive 1

Sources

Extended content

--Another Believer _(Talk) 02:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

This review is transcluded from Talk:12 Songs of Christmas (Etta James album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Belovedfreak (talk • contribs • count) 16:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
On the whole, well-written. A couple of suggestions below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Information presented is supported by references to reliable sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Covers the main points, does not include any irrelevant information. After searching for more sources, I'm not aware of any glaring omissions.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral and balanced.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article is stable, no edit wars or disputes.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
1 non-free image, appropriate size and properly labelled with a descriptive fair-use rationale. 2 free images, appropriately licensed. Suitable captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Awaiting responses to the points raised below.

Spot checks of sources for verifiability and plagiarism/copvio/close paraphrasing show no problems.
No apparent problems with dead links
No links to disambiguation pages
I will list some points below, but they are mostly suggestions that will not affect the outcome of this review.

Lead

Consider adding a little context in terms of who James is, eg. "American singer Etta James".

Added "American singer". --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was a little surprised that Christmas music isn't linked to at all from this article. I think it would be worth doing so either in the lead, infobox or both. Perhaps not in the first section as there is already an inevitable sea of blue links there. It might sound silly, but not everyone will immediately understand what "holiday music" is, as it's not a common term in all countries. And as a Christmas music fan myself, I would probably like to follow that link after reading this article. On the other hand, having looked at that article, it's not in great shape, so I'll leave that up to you to include the link or not.

Linked Christmas music in the lead and infobox. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a big deal, but curious as to why you have an inline citation for the first sentence in the lead (presumably that info is easily verifiable)

Removed inline citation from first sentence of lead. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although you mention the arrangements, it's not explicitly clear in the lead that this is an album of standard holiday songs, with no new material. It would be nice to have that clarified in the lead.

Done. Now reads: "The album, produced by John Snyder, features standards arranged mostly by..." --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reception

"The album did receive some criticism." - I'm not entirely comfortable with the use of "criticism" here as that doesn't necessarily mean something negative. "did receive" (as opposed to "received") also sounds slightly awkward, although I understand what you mean. It's a bit more conversational though.

Now reads: "The album received some negative criticism." --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel

Maybe consider linking flugelhorn as it's a more unusual instrument

Linked flugelhorn with a few additional terms. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

The style of the citations could be a bit more consistent. Eg. in the "title" fields, you have a mixture of sentence case and title case. There also seems to be an inconsistent use of ISSNs, publishing companies and locations.

The titles are as they appear on the original source. I include as many parameters for all references as possible. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, an interesting and well-written article that pretty much meets the GA criteria. I will place the review on hold to allow you to address the above points. To be clear, the only points that will have bearing on the outcome of the review are clarifying in the lead that the album is of non-original music, and that slightly awkward sentence in the "reception" section. --Beloved Freak 11:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Belovedfreak, for taking the time to offer a review of this article. Please let me know if there are any additional concerns needing to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 15:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It all looks fine. I'm happy to list it as a good article. Good work! --Beloved Freak 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.