Talk:Paramore (album)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk · contribs) 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Taking this review. A few comments to start with:

There are some short paragraphs in "Promotion and release" and "Singles". Shouldn't be hard to integrate those into larger ones for minimum choppiness.
Likewise, I wouldn't start Reception with a single-sentence paragraph, but because of how the section's organized, I'm not gonna belabor that one.
There's some repetitive wording in Reception; most of the critics are introduced with "So-and-so at such-and-such". Spice it up a little.
Current references 96 and 97 ("April 5th release date references" and "Paramore reveal new album trailer") are unformatted.

I'll be back later with anything else I find. Tezero (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually fixed some of the repetitive wording in the "Reception" section before. But now I've fixed even more of it, getting rid a few more occurrences of "at". And I started that section with a single sentence to make the overall scoring stand out from the critic reviews. I've also fixed references 96 and 97, and put some of the sentences together in "Promotion and release" and "Singles" sections. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While Prism has given comments, I'll acknowledge that the issues I raised from the start have been addressed. Looking over it further, I don't see anything worth bringing up that Prism hasn't - in other words, when Prism supports this passing, so do I. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Prism

You should have more caution while distinguishing the name "Paramore". You really need to be careful with this: in the commercial performance section, which probably should be renamed Chart performance due to the lack of sales information, Paramore isn't italicized in its first mention.
The critical reception section features too much text for each source. Try to sum it up and paraphrase it as well, it's pretty much a quote farm...
Yahoo! Voices isn't reliable, it's written by Yahoo! users...
Is the Paramore blog acceptable for Wikipedia? I know it's written by the band, but still...

It's a primary source. Make of that what you will. Tezero (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable sources: After the Press!, antiMUSIC, Ultimate Guitar, Rock Sound, Technology Tell, Electronic Musician, to name a few.
The reference style is all but coherent. Why are some refs written like [websitename].com and others just have the actual name? The latter option should be followed. (e.g.: Altpress.com should be Alternative Press). Some references are also written like Magazine (Publisher) and others Magazine. Publisher., some don't even have a publisher.

These are just a few problems I found in the article. I suggest the following concerns should be addressed; if not, I will most likely open a GAR (note that this isn't anything personal or relative to the band, which I actually love; if you're interested I'm working on an "Ain't It Fun" article). If you want to, I'll fix these myself. prism^△ 22:30, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the "questionable sources", I know that Ultimate Guitar is listed as a source to avoid at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, but the one discussion I've seen about it seems to indicate it's more of a sitiuational source. But I don't see anything indicating that particular page was written by a staff user, so maybe I'll replace that one. I'm pretty sure Rock Sound and Alter the Press! are considered reliable, with the former even being listed as a reliable source at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. I haven't seen any discussion on antiMUSIC, Technology Tell or Electronic Musician though.

Yahoo! Voices was actually one source that I wondered about before. There's no staff users or anything there? I'll go ahead and remove that one then.

The Paramore blog does seem to pass WP:ABOUTSELF, since it's written by the band, and there's not too many cites to that. Kokoro20 (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alter/After the Press isn't listed at WP:ALBUM/SOURCE, Alternative Press is. About the questionable sources again, there are probably more reliable sources to support the article than those. prism^△ 23:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I said that Rock Sound is listed there, not Alter the Press!. I have found a discussion indicating it's reliability though (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46). Kokoro20 (talk) 23:24, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for distinguishing the "Paramore" name in the "Commercial performance" section, nice catch. I somehow didn't notice that before when looking through the article. I've fixed it now, and renamed the section, as you suggested. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Tezero: and @Prism:, I just trimmed down some of the quoting, did some paraphrasing, and tried to make the reference style more consistent. Better now? Kokoro20 (talk) 03:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it was that quotey before, but it's better now. As for the references, the only qualm I have is that name ordering is inconsistent. Do Last, First or First Last - whichever you want - but keep it standard. Tezero (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed the rest of the references to list the first name first. Any other concerns? Kokoro20 (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with it if @Prism: is. Tezero (talk) 22:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Prism has edited since we've tagged him but not responded, so I'm going to pass this. Tezero (talk) 20:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]