Talk:Keeps Gettin' Better: A Decade of Hits/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 11:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The album was confirmed for a November 7, 2008 release date with the confirmation that a lead single named "Keeps Gettin' Better would be released on September 9th 2008. -> why not just say "it was released
The single entered the top 10 in the Billboard Hot 100 chart and marked the start of the promotional work for the compilation album. -> this sentence doesn't make much sense
Overall the lead needs work. It should properly summarize the articles contents, which it unfortunately doesn't. I find it to only list its release date and release info, and its sales and charting. Can't we mention information on its background, conception? Promotion? Anything? Look at Number 1's to see an idea of what I mean. Although a larger album with more available information, you can still manage a lead maybe 70% of that, and more importantly, one that covers all broad aspects of the article.

Background

In 2008 it was confirmed that Christina Aguilera -> why not "In 2008, Aguilera confirmed
It was confirmed that Aguilera had signed the rights to the album exclusively to Target, the album released by RCA -> poor flow
saw people who pre-ordered the album receive a free digital download of the lead single "Keeps Gettin' Better". -> doesn't make sense
The album features revised versions of her singles calling them "re-inventions". -> ungrammatical
Aguilera said about the new additions -> you have not mentioned any "new additions" so far, and haven't introduced them. I at this point, don't know what they are until reading further. Try to give it an introduction

Critical reception

This whole section needs a lot of work. All reviews are so and so said and the quote. t reads like a quote farm. Try mixing it up and paraphrasing a bit. Look at The Emancipation of Mimi for examples.
Things like "gave the album an excellent response" are NPOV, and biased

Commercial performance

With numbers under two digits, we spell out the number according to MoS
This section needs tidying as well. Very choppy and repetitive. things like "The album spent five weeks on the chart, also spending five weeks on the Catalog Chart where it peaked at number 8 on the issue date of June 26, 2010" don't read well

Promotion

Promotion started on September 7, when Aguilera performed at the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards in Hollywood -> Not that it was right before, but didn't you say that promotion started with the release of the single?
She previewed the remade version of her first single "Genie 2.0" -> it wasn't released as a single...
Performing at the UK leg of the Thisday Africa Rising -> spacing and not clear what this is
This section can be much better. Its very basic and weak on content. You should have details on the performances, routines, reviews on the performances etc.

Singles

Again. most of this section is redundant, and was just mentioned above. Needs fixing

Charts

The charts and certifications should be in two columns

References

These need a lot of work. Several are not formatted, and most not properly formatted. Please refer to other GA articles for proper formatting.

Overall, this article needs a lot of work in execution. I find it to be very short on content as well. Seven days starting now are given for these fixes. I have watch-listed this page, so comment here and I will respond. After seven days, if said changes are not applied, this will result in a fail. Good luck!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 19:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reviewer comment "credits and personnel" section is missed, without it the article does not meet the C-class criteria on WP:WikiProject Albums, see WP:ALBUMA. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 06:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I did not notice that. In addition to all the issues, it is missing that section.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 06:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes dont know why I haven't added that :( ...I haven't really got time in the next few days to add much more so I'll re-edit it and re-nominate it, thanks for the review though! --FeuDeJoie (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. This nomination has resulted in a fail. Good luck on the next nomination!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 20:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]