Talk:Homework (Daft Punk album)/GA2

GA Review

The following discussion 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.

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

Reviewer: Hahc21 (talk · contribs) 14:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi All. I'll be reviewing this article for the next few weeks. --Hahc21 (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ok, the first thing that needs a change is the lead section. It is too disperse and do not meet the criteria.~~ --Hahc21 (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the lead section to comply with the Manual of Style. --Hahc21 (talk) 23:38, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since i know that when i make a considerable number of edits on an article, i get emotionally involved with it, i will no edit this article to meet the GA criteria. Then, my personal criteria would or could not be as neutral as it should be, so i'll ask project pages and frequent collaborators to give me some hands on improving this article. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure section

I've selected some statements that needs to be rewritten or verified on the Structure section:


#	Statement	Issue	Verdict	Status
1	"Daft Punk felt that the majority of pressings should be in vinyl, so only 50,000 albums were initially printed on CD."	The reference says: "The group had expressed a desire that the album should be released on vinyl rather than CD, and 50,000 copies were pressed." The reference does not makes clear if the 50K copies are from vinyl or CD.	Needs verification.	Solved by user Hahc21 (talk · contribs)
Solution To #1: Changed "felt" with "expressed the desire". So, further reading, this change of words makes more clear that those 50,000 copies might be likely from CD.
2	"This includes the acclaimed “Da Funk” and "Around the World”, which peaked at #1 on the Billboard charts for Hot Dance Music/Club Play."	First: Which of those songs peaked at No.1? The former? the latter? both?.	Needs to be rewritten.	Solved by user what a pro. (talk · contribs)
Solution To #2: User what a pro. (talk · contribs) provided a new reference that showed both songs as No.1 hits, so i'll rewrite the text to fit such information along whith him. --Hahc21 (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3	"The duo subsequently set the order of the album's tracks with a two-disc vinyl LP in mind."	The reference given to cover this assumption does not mention anything about a two-disc vinyl LP.	Needs a reference.	Solved by user jhsounds (talk · contribs)
Solution To #3: User jhsounds (talk · contribs) reworded the sentence to cover what was said in the reference.
4	"The theme for "Da Funk" involves the introduction of a simple, unusual element that becomes acceptable and moving over time.".	The reference given does not cover the affirmation. It only mentions "Da Funk" as part of the DVD.	Needs a reference.	Solved by consensus.
Solution To #4: The companion book contains the reference needed. No other reference has been found.
5	""Michel Gondry likewise compared the track's bassline to that of "Good Times" by Chic." (reffering to "Around the World").	The reference given does not cover the affirmation. It only mentions "Good Times" as part of the DVD.	Needs a reference.	Solved by consensus.
Solution To #5: The companion book contains the reference needed. No other reference has been found.

That's all for today. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~I've revisited the reference and now it works. So, i modified the issue. I'll be takin of the Issue No.1 by myself.~~ --Hahc21 (talk) 05:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User what a pro. (talk · contribs) fixed the issue. Thanks. --Hahc21 (talk) 05:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find a reference for No. 3, so I removed it. I don't get issues No. 4 and 5 though. They cite the companion book of the DVD, not the link. What a pro (talk, contribs) thinks that ohhhh, ohhh, woaaah-oh-oh-ohhhhh. 08:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I originally provided the refs for the 3, 4 and 5, so I went in and made some clarifications. Feel free to let me know if there's still an issue. jhsounds (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I don't get much issue with No.4 and No.5 either, but i put them on the list to see if there's a more comprehensive information out there. If not, then i let the sentences as they are. No problem. --Hahc21 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recording history section

I've selected some statements that needs to be rewritten or verified on the Recording history section:


#	Statement	Issue	Verdict	Status
1	"In 1993 Thomas Bangalter and Guy-Manuel de Homem-Christo presented a demo of electronic music."	The issue here is that maybe "demo of electronic music" is confusing. I think if we write "a demo of their music" or similar to that, it'll be more accurate.	Consideration.	Solved by user jhsounds (talk · contribs).
Solution To #1: Including the word "own" before "electronic music" clarifies the matter and avoid the confusion of thinking Daft Punk as the creators of the genre. User jhsounds (talk · contribs) made the changes.
2	"Daft Punk worked to record other tracks, including "Revolution 909" and "Around the World"."	Is it well-written? I mean, 'worked to record'?. Isn't it redundant?.	Needs to be rewritten.	Solved by user jhsounds (talk · contribs).
Solution To #2: The rewording is satisfactory, but new issues appeared with it. User jhsounds (talk · contribs) made the changes.
3	"Daft Punk later recorded other tracks."	The issue is that the statement seems unnecesary and appears to be unreferenced. My point is: We already know, reading the information on the structure setion that they recorded all the songs in 5 months. So why do we need to write this sentence?. Alert: I appreciate the changes made by jhsounds, but another issue happened. He reworded the sentence to fit the grammar but i had my doubts before that. I'm only asking for an opinion on this. If somebody helps...	Consideration.	Solved by user Hahc21 (talk · contribs).

I found several other minor issues that i took out by myself, like some redundant wording, etc. --Hahc21 (talk) 16:44, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking about putting on the lead section, where the album was mixed, recorded and mastered. I think it should be there. --Hahc21 (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I went in and made some further wording tweaks. Electronic is sort of an important modifier in that the demo was their first work as Daft Punk, as opposed to the rock music they did as part of the band Darlin'. jhsounds (talk) 00:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second phase

Ok. It seems all references are ok, and all statements are well-written and correctly referenced. Now, i'll be reviewing the structure of the paragraphs, sections, order, semantics and syntax. --Hahc21 (talk) 03:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NVPI certification

Hey guys the NVPI certification reference is dead. I need someone to help me find a new one, because i don't speak neither german nor dutch... Thanks --Hahc21 (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the certification from the table until a reference is found. I've "comprehensively" searched the NVPI website and it says no certification know for 1997 until 2006. So, it'll be difficult to find a reference. But either if somebody find one, don't hesitate tu restore the info on the table. --Hahc21 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Final round

Ok, so almost everything that needed to be done, is done. Tomorrow i'll issue the final round of fixes and check the article against the Good article criteria to make my final vote. --Hahc21 (talk) 04:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe there is information out there on the internet to complement this article, so i'll delay the verdict for one day or two fo find all relevant info i can and include it into the article. --Hahc21 (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Verdict

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Final commentary: After some major improvements, Homework is ready as a good article and meets all good article criteria. Thanks to all who controbuted on the article, mainly to jhsounds (talk · contribs) and what a pro. (talk · contribs), who helped me during the review process.

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.