Talk:Body and Soul (Joe Jackson album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Wetrorave (talk · contribs) 14:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be ~~remembering you~~ reviewing this

Infobox and lead

At File:JoeJacksonBodyAndSoul.jpg, you might want to present a better source than Discogs, which is user-generated; this one, which is from the External links section
Where is it stated in the body of the article that the album was recorded in January 1984
Length isn't mentioned in the body
Following MOS:LEAD, the lead shouldn't have references; rather, it should summarize the body of the article, and the body itself should have references
"Body and Soul is an album by Joe Jackson, released in March 1984.^[3] The album was Jackson's seventh studio album, and his first fully digital project. In the UK it peaked at No. 14," > "Body and Soul is the seventh studio album by English singer-songwriter Joe Jackson, released on 14 March 1984 by A&M Records. Jackson's first fully digital project, it peaked at No. 14 in the UK,"
The Professional ratings template should be after the first paragraph of Release and reception, and "Allmusic" should be "AllMusic"

Production

Retitle to Background and production
"first discussing it over sushi" – why is it relevant to mention that they were eating sushi, and what exactly does this sentence mean? Were they discussing it while they were eating sushi (which would be "first discussing it while eating sushi"), or did the discussion have a higher priority than the sushi they were eating (which would be "first discussing it rather than discussing the sushi they were eating")?
"the soundtrack of Mike's Murder," > the soundtrack of Mike's Murder,

Release and reception

"The album was" > "Body and Soul was"
Where is Body and Soul mentioned at ref 13
"Shewey was less impressed with the" > "However, the writer was less positive regarding the"
"which sounded to him like an Elvis Costello track from the Get Happy!! project (1980)." > "which he compared to musician Elvis Costello's tracks from the album Get Happy!! (1980)."
"Shewey thought Jackson's [...] was "a bracing," > "Shewey praised Jackson's [...] for its "bracing,"
"published a glowing review, characterizing" > "characterized" for neutrality
"On the other hand," – this is possibly a cliché, so change it to "However,"

Musical style

This section should be before Release and reception
File:Joe Jackson - 1984 - Loisaida sample.mp3 has a good-looking rationale
"an alcoholic attorney making good." – making good? What does that mean

Track listing

Looks good

Personnel

Needs a source

Charts

The refs should be alongside the numbers, not the chart names

References

Copyvio score looks ok
Cite AllMusic as publisher on ref 1
Replace Allmusic.com on ref 5 with AllMusic
On ref 12, change Grammy.com to Grammy and cite it as publisher
Cite Official Charts as publisher on ref 13

External links

Looks good

Overall

On hold for now:

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

The article does have its amount of problems but is still close to GA. Wetrorave (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have performed a bunch of fixes. Sushi removed, refs shifted from lead paragraph to body, some text added to body to satisfy LEAD. I beefed up the touring paragraph and gave it its own section. I moved discussion of the artwork down into its own section and expanded it somewhat. I think "making good" is can be kept: it appears in the dictionary.[1]

How we lookin' now? Binksternet (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's lookin' good now Binksternet, and there's additional changes too. Seems like a nice ✓ Pass to me. Wetrorave (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]