Talk:Nirvana (Inna album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 01:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"It was entirely recorded at the studios of Global Records" - Need to mention where Global Records is actually located in the lead, and also the body
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't pipe Electronic dance music to 'EDM' on the first instance
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"who noted that Inna showcased" - I'd replace 'noted' as per WP:WORDS
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the songs as innovation loose" - this doesn't sound right. How about "as lacking innovation"?
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'who had previously remixed her single "Gimme Gimme"' - we need the year in brackets that this single was released
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the record's title and its cover were unveiled during an Instagram post" - I'd specify whose account the post came from
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The quote about Inna's explanation of the album's title seems a bit long. Also you don't have to correct very minor mistakes in brackets, such as "My [n]irvana is my family". You can just drop the brackets. Same later on with "[T]he rest is truly the recycled Inna dance sound without any originality. [T]his ..."
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"To accompany the album's release, Inna wrote on her social media..." - this sentence seems a bit superfluous and unnecessary, it doesn't add anything to the article, I'd lose it
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When exactly were each of the three singles released? I'm getting the impression from reading the article that they were released prior to the album (in which case this should be explicitly mentioned in both the lead and the body) though it is never explicitly stated.
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to give the chart positions for "Ruleta" I'd expect you to give exact chart placement for the other two as well.
Done Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
You seem to have attributed ref No. 17 to Paris Hilton, rather than Perez Hilton :)
Done Sorry lol... Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think CelebMix meets the criteria to be a reliable source. It has no information about editorial oversight and appears to be written by volunteers [1]. Feel free to ask WP:RSN for a more official ruling on it though. Unfortunately this is going to be a major issue as the article relies so heavily on articles from this source
You're right about the fact that the website also uses content written by volunteers, but the pages used here are a special case. They were all written by Jonathan Currinn, who is a blogger, author and music journalist employed for several other magazines. I'm quite sure this makes him reliable; he has also graduated from the British Staffordshire University. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Direct Lyrics is a reliable source either. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 216. Also why is 'Direct Lyrics' piped to SpinMedia?
It is a similar situation here. The only articles I used from Direct Lyrics are written by Kevin Apaza, who is the editor in chief and the manager of the publication. He has also notable graduated from the British University of Roehampton. I remeber having the same situation in one of my past GANs, lol... Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Checklinks seems to find a few issues: [2]
Fixed Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Are you sure you can't find any more reviews of the album? Even if the CelebMix review was reliable this wouldn't be enough unless you were absolutely certain no other notable publication had given a review of the album
This is all I could find for the album on the internet. Coverage on a subject like Inna and her singles/albums is (sadly) always limited. Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have noticed this on my GA review for Hot (Inna album), but you don't have a 'Credits / personnel' section. See Shades of Purple for an example. Incidentally I suggest you add one to Hot as well before someone else notices.
I'm always hesitant about creating "Credits and personnel" sections on Inna articles, as we do not have much content to add to the sections. Here, all the credits we have are writing /composing credits which are already included in "Track listing" and should not be repeated in "Credits and personnel". The same goes for Hot (we can't create a credits section with just knowing the photographer of the album)... Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough regarding both of the above points. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: I'm sorry, but with these sources I don't think this is going to pass in its current state. I'm happy to leave it open for a while for you to work on the issues though. Feel free to ask me any questions. Freikorp (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Thank you very much for taking your time for reviewing my GAN. I have responded to all your comments above! Have a nice day ; Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making all the above changes. The article is much better now and if I were you I'd be quite proud of writing it. I'm on the fence regarding whether those two sources are acceptable, so I've asked for some more opinions at RSN. I'm hoping a few people will comment on the matter. If opinions are mixed at RSN I'll give the sources the benefit of the doubt, however, if there's a clear consensus that the sources are not acceptable then naturally I'll be inclined to side with that. Freikorp (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Cartoon network freak: The response I've gotten so far from RSN is that CelebMix is OK, but DirectLyrics is not. Looking at what DirectLyrics is used to back up within the article I don't see the sources as important as other sources appear to back up the statements they are supporting. are you happy to just remove them and then I can pass the nomination? Or would you like to wait for more opinions from RSN? Freikorp (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Freikorp: Hi there! I removed the uses of Direct Lyrics as a source. Thank you again for your time... Cartoon network freak (talk) 13:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass now. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]