Talk:Iowa (album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

I chose to review this article. Comments coming soon. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Reviewed well by fans and critics alike" I think fans are not legit in reviewing or giving opinions about the album.
  • "…the album included many of the band's hits including "Left Behind" and "My Plague", which were both nominated for a Grammy Award." To what extent they are considered hits? Additionally, in what year were these two songs nominated?
    • The years are discussed within the "Reception" section. Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first query is not yet addressed, I think. YOu can add the year, it won't hurt. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hailed as the "absolute triumph of nu metal"," This needs attribution. Based on the reference given, it's John Molvey.
  • Album information is not the proper title, I think. The entire article is the album information.
    • Do you have a suggestion its kind of a odds-and-ends section, though everyting is notable. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • YOu can probably use "background". --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merged as discussed. Blackngold29 02:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably get rid of the parenthesis in the first line under album information.
  • "…expected title by some sources…" What sources? Sources could be come from everywhere in different forms.
    • The statement is sourced, Rezter could probably clarify this. Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah it is sourced dude... it's from the Inside The Sickness book. REZTER TALK ø 17:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The title of the first song, "(515)", is the telephone area code for central Iowa, where Des Moines is located. "I Am Hated" was performed in the film Rollerball and later appeared in the 2003 video game Amplitude. "My Plague" was remixed for the Resident Evil soundtrack." Hmm… The first sentence is somewhat related to the album title but the other two seems not.
  • Who says it is highly anticipated?
    • It is sourced, but I don't know the exact words of the book. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you search it again? It would be better to attribute those claims. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have the book, Rezter? Blackngold29 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't quote anybody in the book but he is saying that basically everyone (fans and critics) wanted to see a second, so if you were going to attribute it to anybody you could say the author. REZTER TALK ø 09:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Precisely. I still can see some potential POVic words and would be better if attributed. --Efe (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Rezter, does the author use the words "highly anticipated"? If so we can put quotes around it and attribute it to him. Blackngold29 00:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Attributed Blackngold29 14:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a warm-up tour?
    • It would appear to be a short (five-dates) tour, but not the main album tour. I can't say for certain though. Blackngold29 17:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you specify it there? --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It already is. "preceded by a five-date warm-up tour" Blackngold29 01:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "pushed back until August" Back might connote that the album was slated in a certain date other than June 19 but because of the delay, it was "pushed back" to August.
  • "However, the earliest dates were delayed due to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon." You can probably add the date of this event. The attack is better known by its date.
  • I think the section recording and production is better titled as production and promotion. After all, recording is part of the production. Also, you mentioned there "in support of the album" so it means it is a promotion. This section can be split into two sections as well.*
  • "while also showing influences from other genres" What genres in particular?
  • "sources praised the band" What are these sources? Who praised the band?
  • "Once again, the band was also praised for its use of their extensive line-up consisting of additional percussionists and electronics" Who praised them? Could you just state that they use extensive lineup?
    • NME praised for that in the next sentence. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every possible space is covered in scrawl and cymbals: guitars, percussion, electronic squall, subhuman screaming." Some terms here needs link if existing.
  • Also here: "it includes strong use of metaphors to describe overtly dark themes including misanthropy, solipsism, disgust, anger, disaffection, psychosis and rejection."
  • Amazon reviews are not accepted in Wiki.
    • It's not a fan review, it's the official review written by the Amazon employee, I don't see how he's different from the guy at Yahoo. Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dropped a message here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Amazon.com_review. --Efe (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it'll help the GAN along, we can take the statement out and once a verdict is reached over that the RS noticeboard, I can either re-add or leave it out. Blackngold29 14:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:RS/Noticeboard is making this review sluggish. The part supported by the Amazon source seems to be a pure review than the description of the music/lyrics. This time, I would really insist that the writer and the site is not legit when it comes to these technicalities. It would be better to put it in the reception section or outrightly remove them from the page. Unaddressed suggestion is the one below. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Removed Blackngold29 16:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Following the huge success of their debut album Slipknot, anticipation for a follow up was intense." Slipknot should be identified as their debut album where it is first mentioned in the article. It becomes redundant. Also, huge and intense suggest POV.
    • I added an extra comma, that should take care of being redundant. As for the "intense follow-up" the statement is sourced, therefore isn't POV is it? Blackngold29 16:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Big things" is vague.
  • "Upon its release, the album was considered a huge success, meeting the expectations of the fans and the promises the band members alike." Who considered is a huge success?
  • In the personnel section, what are those numbers for?
  • Ref 1 and 2 is not well formatter. All should not be in italics.
    • (They're now ref 2 & 3) I changed the Arnopp one to the "Book citation". However the other one is a CD, and I'm not sure how that should be cited. Blackngold29 02:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any suggestions on how to cite a CD? Blackngold29 16:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean the template to cite a CD/album? YOu can use this: {{Cite album-notes}}. --Efe (talk) 07:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done - Technically I believe we are citing the album itself (it is spoken word) and not the notes; but I think that'll be close enough. Blackngold29 15:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the author and work parameter in ref 5 and 7 similar?

That's all. You may drop a message to me or here informing that my suggestions are all addressed or properly been objected for further discussion. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 07:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am fixing little stuffs before passing this to GA. One thing, for reviews, add who is the reviewer of the magazine/website/ect. --Efe (talk) 07:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The charting history of the album and its singles needs to be discussed in the prose. I say a short paragraph in the Reception section discussing the UK and US performances should do. indopug (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's left?[edit]

If I'm reading this correctly, all things have been resolved or discussed to a point that we can agree on, so is the article now at the standard where it can be passed as a GA? REZTER TALK ø 14:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Iowa_(album)/GA1&oldid=1136269120"