Talk:Thrive (Casting Crowns album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 01:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC) This one looks interesting. On first glance, it has potential, but I'll walk ya through it, even if we don't make it there ;)[reply]

Okay, finally back, first things first:

Sourcing: Red flag: We can't use CD Universe. It's an e-commerce site and is not acceptable as a source. Fortunately, where it's used can be replaced with a citation of the liner notes (or even one of the many sources that may have covered this album).
I understand the issue here - however, I have a slight problem. Normally the album liner notes are included with a digital purchase of an album. Unfortunately, the liner notes were not included for this album and I have no clue where I can find them. Unless I can find an alternative source for them, the information relating to where the album was recorded will have to be removed. Toa Nidhiki05 01:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It probably won't be hard to locate a press release if need be. From what I've seen, whenever a new album is released a small press release goes out to a number of music news sites, and gets posted ad infinitum so they're almost all you can find on Google. It's standard practice for the music industry in this day & age AFAIK. Good luck! Lazy Bastard Guy 17:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked extensively and there does not appear to be any press release with these - the only sites that list where the album was recorded are e-commerce sites. Toa Nidhiki05 14:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of any place to obtain a scan of the liner notes? If it can verify the information originally taken from CD Universe, we can cite it using the appropriate template. Lazy Bastard Guy 17:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to check and see if I know anyone who has the physical album copy. Short of that I'm not sure what to do - the only sites that list the recording info are e-commerce sites. Toa Nidhiki05 18:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good news! I've found the album's listing at WorldCat and it includes partial recording information. It only lists one recording studio, but I'll see if I can find another one with the full listing. If not, we can roll with that source. Toa Nidhiki05 23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article history: Some harmonious collaboration going on back there, with minimal (if any at all) conflict.
Images used: Just the album cover; of very low resolution and fair use rationale seems sufficient.

More to come. TTFN (Ta Ta For Now)!

EDIT: I'm so sorry it's taking so long. I sometimes forget all about it! I will see what I can do in the next day or so, and at least get something going. So I'm assuming you managed to get the WorldCat citation? I went looking and I didn't see it in the article, but it looks like it'd be okay to use to me. Lazy Bastard Guy 01:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

04: 27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Alright, let's see if I can prevent this from getting to the one-month mark. Again, I am profusely sorry that it has taken this long. For some reason I just haven't been able to get back to this, but since I'm here, here we go.

Lead

Last sentence of the first paragraph could probably be expanded, especially with any common negative criticisms of the album.
- Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure the chart information should be explained here, but on the other hand, it's fairly unobtrusive and concise. I could let this one slide, but maybe at least a small trimming is needed (e.g. just say it charted internationally, it doesn't matter how high or where)
- I've trimmed the charting numbers but kept the mention of which countries it charted in, mainly because it charted in a good number of them for a Christian album. How does it look? Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lookin' pretty good!

Any other singles so far? Seems odd there's only one (but if there's only one as substantiated by sources that's perfectly alright).
- Thanks for pointing this out - it does seem like half a year is a while for a new single (although the band put out their first single way too far in advance of the album IMO). I've checked, and it appears the title track went for adds on the 22nd. I've added it to the singles list now. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Background and recording

Nothing here except the CDUniverse citation. Again, the alternative you've presented looks okay, but I'll let you handle putting that in (I'm just the reviewer, remember ;P )

Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Composition and musical style

"Gang vocals" - don't you mean backing vocals?
- Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice a lot of "described as" and such in this section. Are these descriptors coming from critics or from the band themselves? If the former, I would recommend finding more things the band themselves say about it.
- Mostly from critics. I'll try and rewrite this to explicitly note the critic and see if I can find more from the band. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the song sample used, so I'll look at it here: First sample looks good, short, sweet, fair use rationale and all that... ditto for the second... alright, and the third looks good too. All samples are go. On a side note, well done with the diversity of choices here; very educational in spirit.
- Thanks - I generally try to pick one upbeat, one mid-tempo, and one ballad to give a good balance. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion

I'd like to echo my concerns about the chart positions in the lead paragraph, given that it's almost entirely repeated here. We could somehow truncate what's in the lead without losing much, though.

I agree, my main concern though is that this would make the lede really, really short for a decent-length article. I'll see if I can vary up the information a bit and reduce overlap. Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

I notice you kick this section off with a couple sentences about some common ideas between reviews. Personally, I would use each of these as the opening sentence of a paragraph where reviews containing such comments are quoted and individually sourced, but then I would leave the opening statement without a citation because it wouldn't need one. If critics "praised the album's songwriting" and/or "felt the album could have a broad appeal", that should be shown via the samples you take from the reviews (and can be shown in two separate paragraphs even if you end up quoting the same review more than once).

I've overhauled this section a bit. How does it look now? Toa Nidhiki05 02:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could find a synonym or two for "praised" and sprinkle it throughout, just to give it some variety. Also, your work looks fine, although I think somewhere along the way you repeated two reviewers' comments without meaning to (I've removed them). Lazy Bastard Guy 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're almost there. Maybe I ought to point this out, though - I have checked a few of the reviews and have concerns that they may not be good enough as WP:RS, but I'm not entirely sure either. Lazy Bastard Guy 03:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: Once I have some clarification on the sources used for retrieving reviews, we'll be able to move forward. Lazy Bastard Guy 01:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LazyBastardGuy: and @Toa Nidhiki05: The source list can be found by going here. Have a great day both of you, HotHat (talk) 07:04, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! No question anymore! I will probably come to a final decision by the end of today. It helps now that we've got the question of reliability out of the way. Lazy Bastard Guy 17:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final verdict

I notice most of the material in "Background and recording" is basically about the album's content and not really, well, its background or recording session(s). In fact, there's no material in the article at all about the album's history prior to its release. Does any such info exist? Have you been able to locate any? Your answers to these questions will help me render the final verdict that's already long overdue (again, I must apologize for that).

If the material exists and/or you've been able to locate stuff about the album's prehistory, then I have to fail the article (because material that belongs in what I would consider to be a Good album article but isn't there can't be reviewed), but if you can give me proof that such material doesn't exist/is hard to locate and probably not all that plentiful anyway, I will pass it as is (although I would recommend moving the entire first paragraph of "Background and recording" to the next section where it seems it would be most relevant).

I really am sorry I protracted the review for so long, I've been so slow to get around to it lately. I'm not even busy, I just couldn't quite get my head into it. I won't pick up another review until I'm certain I can see it through in short order, so you won't have to worry about this from me again. So what'll it be? Lazy Bastard Guy 04:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I can definitively show there isn't info on the album's pre-history, but I can say from experience that usually there isn't a whole lot of info about the album pre-history of Christian bands, unless they get a feature in a major magazine (like Billboard). While I was able to elaborate more on that with previous Casting Crowns albums (like their debut album, Lifesong, and The Altar and the Door), those features simply aren't out there with this one for whatever reason. At CCM Magazine (the biggest Christian music magazine) the band's only feature covers stuff already in the article (namely, the album as-is, not recording history) and at Billboard the band has a few pieces, but the ones not under firewall (like this one) don't go into pre-recording any more than what is already in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 15:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand. Would you be opposed to merging those two sections since there really isn't any "Background and recording" info in the article to speak of (short of name/location of studio and producer)? Lazy Bastard Guy 16:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't have an issue to that. I can't do it at the moment (I have to go for 3-4 hours) but I will get on it as soon as I can. Toa Nidhiki05 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I touched it up a bit, but having done so this article now passes as far as I'm concerned. I see no reason not to. Congratulations!