Talk:Madame X (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Nominator: 11JORN (talk · contribs) 07:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Binksternet (talk · contribs) 19:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First I'm going to jump around, looking at various parts and commenting. After that I'll make sure I hit all the formal GA criteria. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Springsteen photo and mention, I don't think his album is important enough for this topic. Is there a source specifically comparing his chart presence as preventing Madame X from reaching number 1? Because chart success is not a zero-sum game. People buying Springsteen's album simply outnumbered people buying Madonna's. There would be very little crossover between them; that is, the money spent on Springsteen's rock music would hardly be considered taken away from Madonna's Latin/trap/pop/world music. Binksternet (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for the sample of Tchaikovsky in "Dark Ballet"? Is it in the liner notes? If so, let's throw a named ref on it.

Ref 64 cites this info. Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The table of release history has no references. Do we need such a table? Can it be replaced by the prose descriptions already present? Binksternet (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removed! Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline WP:NOEXEC isn't clear about whether we list Mike Dean in the infobox as "also exec", but the executive producers are not named in the article, so there isn't a backup source if the infobox is removed. WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE says that removing the infobox should not take information away from the article, with a few exceptions. Binksternet (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any source mentioning Mike Dean as an executive producer, so I removed this bit. Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why the ToolForge link analyzer called Yahoo News "potentially spammy". The citation supports the idea that Madonna was criticized for her rose-pierces-nipple early version of the album artwork. If we keep the Yahoo source we should list Whitney Vasquez as the author, as seen in the Malaysian page for Yahoo. Other sources published similar stories, for instance ET Online, Metro UK, and NME magazine. I don't really have a problem with Yahoo News, especially since it's not alone in publishing the criticism. Binksternet (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the augmented reality performance of "Medellín" be mentioned in the lead section? Seems like it made a splash in the media. Maybe a bit more could be added to the article body about how Madonna and the AR people worked to create the four avatars. Maybe a link to volumetric capture. Just a suggestion.

Done! Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bunch of reading flow changes along with manual of style and grammar tweaks. It was faster than listing them all here.

Thanks! Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Madonna's concert film Madame X from being described as a Paramount+ original production. Sources don't support that.
I think we need to mention the Amazon Prime documentary The World of Madame X, released in July 2019. We already cite an MTV source mentioning the project, and there's also a Rolling Stone source which can be cited. Binksternet (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is cited on the "Release and promotion" section already. Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Formal review:

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 (reference section): b (inline 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Review is on hold for minor improvements as described above. Major article contributors Chrishm21 and Apoxyomenus should feel free to complete the GA requirements if 11JORN continues being inactive. Binksternet (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet Issues addressed. Thank you for the review! Alex ^{reach me!} 23:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to 11JORN , Chrishm21 and Apoxyomenus. The article passes GA! Binksternet (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumbs up. Congratulations. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]