Talk:The Drug in Me Is You/GA1

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

Reviewer: Efe (talk • message •contribs • count • logs • email) 02:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• Main concerns - I have yet to look at the actual prose, but my main concern at the moment are the references. Now, you have an opportunity to explain to me what makes many of them reliable. Usually, for GA, we rely only on highly-reliable sources. Most of these look like fansites/blogs/unofficial sources. Tell me, what makes most of these reliable.
  • Metal.com - what makes this reliable?
    • Being an independent, commercial website with a distinct author makes this reliable. However, I can see that it is not a well known source and may not be ideal. But, the information referenced is all verifiable by other sources and is no controversial, so i see no reason it cannot be included. As the purpose of the article is supplemental to another source, I can remove it if you would like, but I figure that every additional source helps.GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bryan Stars Interviews - Looks like a blog
    • Is a source run by a single person, though it is a separate domain with commercial sponsors, so I figured it was notable. In addition, Bryanstars has gotten exclusive interviews with bands like Hollywood Undead, Falling In Reverse, and others I can't remember at the moment, so that adds credibility. As such, this is the most reliable source confirming that the band has signed with Epitaph, so it is necessary. This is a fact though, as the album has already been released via epitaph.GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rock Access - Doesn't establish reliability. Could easily be replaced
    • Yeah, I knew this reference was iffy at best when adding. The info is already sourced on the ref next to it, so it can be deleted without issue if you'd like.GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Space - This doesn't belong
    • Simply finding evidence of media promotion, but i do see this as unreliable, so it can be removed without issue.GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zobbel should be replaced by OOC
    • Sorry, what is OOC? I'm bad at chart finding.GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sources (Billboard) have flaws in the formatting. As a printed work, it should be in italics, as the "work"
    • I'm not sure what you mean, could you give me an example of an ideally cited billboard source? And is that the only improperly formatted ref, because I can't identify any others.GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list goes on

--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 16:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any changes yet until you evaluate my notes and decide what is the best course of action. If you agree, I will be removing the Rock Access and Myspace refs, and leaving the rest. Reformatting of Billboard will be done with instruction and will find OOC once I figure out what that is. Thanks, GroundZ3R0 002 04:47, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator, GroundZ3R0 002, posted a second opinion on the GA page to ask another reviewer to assist in completing this review, as the original reviewer is gone for a month on personal leave. Any reviewer who wishes to take over is welcome and may take note of the partial review undergone by Petergriffin9901. GroundZ3R0 002 04:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reviewing the article. --Efe (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonably well written.

• a (prose)

  Generally, the writing has a number of lapses.

• "with recording beginning" --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "recording taking" avoid the -ing -ing order. Either you will have to put full stop after in 2008, or rephrase the sentence. --Efe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "with pre-orders beginning" This one also. --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "with Radke explaining" --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "and a day later on July 26" redundant --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "The album's first official single" all singles are official. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The album debuted at number 19 on the US Billboard 200, selling 18,000 copies in it's first week in the United States." debuted and first week have the same meaning, US and United States, either of the two. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "with reviewers noticing" Generally the n+ing phrasing is avoided. A helpful guide is found here. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "of which" there is inappropriate. In which perhaps? --Efe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "who has worked on Blessthefall's album Witness and worked with Radke on Escape the Fate's debut Dying is Your Latest Fashion" be consistent with the tenses. --Efe (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "After meeting with a few record labels, Radke announced that the album would be released in 2011 by Epitaph Records, Radke's former label with Escape the Fate." This actually is an edited version. When did he announce it? --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's so much quoted sentences in the section recording and production. Could you trim or "write" them instead? --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists)

• It is suggested you reverse the order of the sections "singles and promotion" and "recording and production". The chronology is broken. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There's only one producer in the infobox, and then the lead says "alongside former bandmate Omar Espinosa and others as additional producers". --Efe (talk)

• "alongside former bandmate Omar Espinosa and others as additional help in the studio." Could you be more specific with the word "help"? --Efe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Prints should be in italics. For example Billboard or Billboard 200. Same goes with the inline citations. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I get them all?GroundZ3R0 002 08:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can still see improperly formatted words (i.e. those should be in italics). --Efe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside from the Billboard stuff, "soon confirmed to be titled, "The Drug in Me Is You"" here the title should also be in italics. You use quotation marks for names of songs, but albums should be in italics. --Efe (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Those online publications without print editions should not be in italics. --Efe (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• For brevity, you need not mention details of the release of the singles in the lead. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Link "hardcore music and another with pop rock music". Should link new terms, but avoid overlinking. --Efe (talk) 07:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Link terms such as "mixing" and "tracking" --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think you need to make a subsection under "Recording and production", which I don't think covered much of what that section contains. You might want to change it to production, then under that is a subsection called themes. Up to you. --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "prison[3], " the inline citation should go after the punctuation. --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.

• a (references)

• Worried about Live Music Insider. All reviews must be of professional standard. --Efe (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • What make Killyuorstereo.com a reliable source? --Efe (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• b (citations to reliable sources)

• "[Eminem] is someone who has been knocked down and knocked down, and he’s gotten back up again. Time and time again. And he’s triumphed." Direct quotations such as this should have a direct inline inline citation. --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• c (OR)

• "was speculated" by who? --Efe (talk) 08:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "After meeting with a few record labels, Radke announced that the album would be released in 2011 by Epitaph Records, Radke's former label with Escape the Fate." after meeting with a few record labels, can't find it in the source. Avoid original research please. --Efe (talk) 08:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It follows the neutral point of view policy.

• Fair representation without bias

• Widely criticized and universally praised are POVish terms. --Efe (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure exactly how to remedy this. I was under the impression that a summary of the reception should be added in the lead, and that would require adding the opinions of the reviewers. Any ideas on the best way to remedy this? GroundZ3R0 002 08:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Those terms may introduce bias, unless supported by a reliable source. Just use neutral terms (e.g. noted). For guidance on using such terms, see WP:PEACOCK and WP:WEASEL. --Efe (talk) 07:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "scathing review" Just state the review, and the readers will decide if it was indeed scathing or not. Check the entire section to eliminate such terms. --Efe (talk) 08:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and addressed your comments so far, striking out to indicate addressed issues. I left a few questions on points I was unsure about. Also, I addressed all of Nathan's comments in the way I believe he would have agreed to. I'm assuming you were just beginning with a few points at a time and have more to address? GroundZ3R0 002 08:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. When I come back, I will do a another round of review. I might decide then whether to promote the article or not. Thank you.--Efe (talk) 08:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note that you have seven days from the time this was put on hold to address the concerns raised. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 12:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone through the The Drug in Me Is You GA and completed every bullet you've pointed out. A few things: "Tracking", in regards to music, does not have a linkable page, so I left it. I also removed both reviews you did not find appropriate, but now there are much too many positive reviews compared to negative, leaning a bias for an album that got mixed reviews (in my opinion, i've found more negative). How should we resolve this, because I can't find any notable negative reviews. The ones that were on there were the best I believe. GroundZ3R0 002 03:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allmusic could pass a mixed review. How did you arrive such assumption? --Efe (talk) 13:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh very true. Though it wasn't exactly negative, I went ahead and added it. I find reviews through searching Google news to find the best articles, though they arent always the best. Thats why allmusic never showed to me. The section seems more balanced now, but if you can find any other article I can add it. GroundZ3R0 002 07:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More comments

• There's just too much quotations in the section "recording and production". Could you possibly write them instead of quoting? --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This for example: Radke said that, "I would think all day, for days and days, [about] what people would want to hear. I would dissect my old album and read all the fan letters and the reasons why they loved my band and why they listened to it. And I wrote about that, but in different ways."

it can be "written" instead of quoting. --Efe (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"But I just have a feeling that record name was about me. They talk a lot of shit." This part could also be written instead of quoting, and the second sentence is not even appropriate for an encyclopedia unless justified. --Efe (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Unnecessary commas "Radke commented that, "in the"; "had tones of being, "arrogant"; "having, "fast guitars"; etc. --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• On organization, the section recording and production has prominent information about the themes and/or influences of the album. --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• On the section critical response. There's too much quotations and all direct quotations must have direct inline citation. It doesn't matter if you repeat the citation thrice in a paragraph. --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I can still see POVish terms such as "praised". --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Placement of punctuation marks inside or outside the quoted material. Sample is and noted that, "he fell short big time," calling the album's music, "out of date and overdone.", not mention the two superfluous commas. --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• There are still improperly italicized terms. Billboard 200 should not be written as Billboard 200. --Efe (talk) 06:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe I got all the comma, italicization, inline citation, and over-quotation issues. I feel the recording/production section took a big dip in quality from losing all these quotes but hopefully I'm wrong. Themes are a part of production, because it is the making of the album and fits with that section. I realize a themes subsection would be ideal, but I believe there is too little information on themes to justify a small section as well as it would further disrupt the cohesion of the production section. What do you think? GroundZ3R0 002 07:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two paragraphs in that section that are about the themes. Perhaps you could change the section with appropriate title. --Efe (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• "The title, The Drug in Me Is You, came from Radke's past experiences" The unnecessary use of comma aside, the meaning is not clear. The title could not necessarily mean taken directly from his experience (and there's no future experience by the way, so future is redundant). Maybe you mean allude, refers, or something to that effect. --Efe (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• The reviews really bother me. The review... The review.. The resulting score.. Could this possibly be tighten? --Efe (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• "comparing different parts of the same song to Norma Jean, Underoath, and Katy Perry" Did you mean their works? Styles? --Efe (talk) 08:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed those. I think my sentence rewording in the critical response helped fluidity of reading. Do you really think having a page of four, small, two-paragraph each sections would be a good idea? It would make the article as a whole look under-written and flat. GroundZ3R0 002 08:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I wouldn't suggest that. Just need balancing between stub paragraphs and verbose / choppy sentences. --Efe (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other than a few small repetitive words and such, I can't seem to notice any hinges in the section. Examples? GroundZ3R0 002 09:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of my comments have not been addressed, or if not agreeable, kindly leave points / reasons. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just went through all of your comments and made sure I addressed them all. I did miss your thing about the inappropriate quote, but I just fixed that. The only thing I did not do is one of those quotes, because I did three others so I figured that one could stay. Also, I did not separate the Recording section into themes because I believe it would seriously damage the chronology and quality of the section. Other than those two, which I feel justified in keeping, I believe I have addressed every one of your points. Is there any other things that have not been addressed? GroundZ3R0 002 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I put this on hold for more days days maybe a week? I really have very limited time now for Internet. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's all good don't worry :) Message me when you come back to it in case i dont notice right away. GroundZ3R0 002 02:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know that I'm still here. I'll visit the page on Sunday. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as GA. --Efe (talk) 15:05, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]