Talk:Mid Air (Romy album)/GA1

DECLINED

Nominator's request. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA Review

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

Nominator: QuietHere (talk · contribs) 15:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming review.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
The article uses quotes throughout the article so most of the content comes from a secondary writer.

B. MoS compliance (including, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources (including an appropriate reference section):

B. Citation of available and reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations:
No copyvios, but too many quotes
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Short sections and missing sections

B. Focused:
Short sections and missing sections
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

@QuietHere: sorry for the delay. I'll review this article as soon as I complete The Album (Jonas Brothers album)'s. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem and no rush. Take all the time you need. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

"in collaboration with Fred Again and Stuart Price, and consists of" → wrong comma
"The album was received positively by critics, and appeared on record charts from numerous countries." → wrong comma; "in numerous countries"
I haven't read the whole article but I'm sure that the lead can be expanded

Background

"but when they wrote "Loveher" in those sessions Romy decided" → "in those sessions, Romy decided"

Release

"features Fred Again who also produced" → "features Fred Again, who also produced"
"features a sample of the American singer-songwriter" → "a sample of American"
"and set for a release date on" → "and set for release on"
"a music video was released for "She's on My Mind" starring Maisie Williams and directed by Vic Lentaigne" → "a music video for "She's on My Mind", starring Maisie Williams and directed by Vic Lentaigne, was released"; active voice might be better
"Los Angeles, New York City, Buenos Aires and Santiago" → "Los Angeles and New York City, in the United States, Buenos Aires, Argentina, and Santiago, Chile"

Style

(This also applies to the reception section) Earwig's Copyvio Detector is currently down, but I perceive too many quotations for a short article
"most frequently evokes ... the early 00s wave" → "most frequently evokes [...] the early 00s wave"
"In an interview" → Who interviewed her?
"and English music duo" → the English

Reception

Metacritic says 8 reviews. I only can see 3 and they are quotes. It is necessary to rewrite this section.
"Awards and nominations" can become prose; "Year-end lists" can be mentioned in prose

Track listing and Personnel need a source for the adaptation

@QuietHere: I'll continue later with the missing sections. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 05:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started with some of the small things. Others I left which I think are fine as is. Already have some questions/disagreements:

What do you mean by "wrong comma" in the lead?

It means that that comma is incorrect.

Don't see the point of including the countries in "Los Angeles, New York City, Buenos Aires and Santiago" given those are four of the biggest cities in the world.

Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. You cannot assume the readers know everything.

I'm not certainly opposed to reducing the awards to prose (though I'd prefer to leave it as is unless you insist upon changing it), but with the number of year-end lists included I think it reads far better as a table.

I didn't request the year-end list to be transformed to prose. I requested prose acknowledging the table.

Not sure what you mean by "adaptation", but MOS:ALBUM says that it is generally safe to assume that track listings and personnel lists are sourced directly from an album's liner notes and don't need to be explicitly sourced. I've known editors to go out of their way to remove those sources in appropriate instances, and I see nothing wrong with that.

From where you obtained and adapted the credits? The liner notes, Tidal, Allmusic? "It is generally safe" and "other stuff exist" are not valid arguments for omission

Why ask for the removal of a "the" in the "American singer-songwriter" instance, but also an addition of one to "English music duo"? Seems contradictory to me, and not particularly necessary in either case.

Beverly Glenn-Copeland is a singer-songwriter, not the singer-songwriter. She is Beverly Glenn-Copeland, not the Beverly Glenn-Copeland. The use of the for professions is limited to specific professions, like the president or the pope. You can say the teacher or the engineer, but once you already know who the teacher and the engineer are. On the opposite, it is the music duo in the same sense that you wouldn't ommit saying "the band" when referring to any band.

I don't think the interviewer needs to be identified in prose given all of that info is readily available in the citation.

It is a clarified attribution. Vagueness is not clear and clarity is a criterion for the process. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 17:53, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QuietHere (talk | contributions) 05:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial performance

There is no section to review. As per WP:NOTSTATS, "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."

References

Source 6 (Stereogum): "The lead single, "Strong", was released on 14 November 2022, and features Fred Again, who also produced with Romy and Stuart Price." → The source never mentions the production.
Source 9 (The Guardian): "Young, known as Young Turks until 2021, had previously released albums by the xx." → Relevance?
Source 14 (AnyDecentMusic): "7.8/10" → The source says 7.9
Source 15 (Metacritic): "According to the review aggregator Metacritic, Mid Air received "universal acclaim" based on a weighted average score of 84 out of 100 from 8 critic scores." It is now 82 from 9 critics.
Source 20 (Mojo): Author? ISSN? Volume?
Source 23 (Uncut): Author? ISSN? Volume?
Source 24 (Pitchfork) has a co-author
Source 27 (Billboard): Use this link instead [1]
Source 31 (MondoSonoro): Link? / Page? ISSN? Volume?

Infobox

What makes Francine Perry, Koreless, Brian Eno, Jamie xx, and Avalon Emerson the album's producers? Not the songs that they produced, but the album itself? Are they all credited as part of the album production? If so, the article doesn't establish it.

@QuietHere: That's the whole review. You'll need to work on the reception (critical and commercial) sections. Article on hold. Ping me back if you have questions or concerns. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 02:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take care of the smaller things when I can. Dunno if I'm gonna get a chance to finish the larger fixes soon, so I'm going to withdraw for now since there's no point in keeping this open if I can't follow through on it. Thanks for all your recommendations @Tbhotch, I will consider all of them and implement everything that makes sense when I can. I will leave one other concern regarding the producers in the infobox: listing all credited producers (but not exec. or additional/associate producers per) is standard practice as described at NOEXEC. Look at any album, especially pop and hip hop albums which typically have different producers per track, and see similar lists in action. The article won't (or shouldn't, at least) be added to categories for producers who only worked on a couple songs, but listing them in the infobox is common practice. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:10, 3 July 2024 (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.