Talk:The Way We Were (Barbra Streisand album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• Grabbing this for a review. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

• For the following part from the lead (Columbia renamed Streisand's LP Featuring the Hit Single The Way the Were and All in Love Is Fair in order to minimize confusion), would it be more appropriate to say that "Columbia added the following caption to Streisand's LP: Featuring the Hit Single The Way the Were and All in Love Is Fair)? The verb "renamed" could be misinterpreted as renaming the entire LP that.

Done [1]

• Could expand on the bit about Streisand's needs? It is fine as it currently stands, but I was just curious if that is more information available on this.

Done [2] – Yes. I tried making the sentence more clear as the following one addresses her "needs"; I also tried making the statement more neutral by using "wants". Carbrera (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• Again, this is more of a clarification question, but is there any information on why The Singer was unreleased? The AllMusic source mentions it was unfinished, but leaves it at that. If you can't find any further information, then the section is fine as it currently stands.

I found a fansite with a bit of info, but none of it seems to be very significant for this particular article. Hope this helps, Carbrera (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

No worries, it is fine as it currently stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

• I would remove the "In fact" transition in the first paragraph of the first section as it seems a little bit too editorially for my taste.

Done [3]

• I do not believe that the "Other than commercial singles" transition is necessary either as it is somewhat awkwardly placed. The rest of the sentence/paragraph is fine and makes clear the distinction between commercial single and promotional single without the need for a transition.

Done [4]

• I am not sure about the placement of the Rolling Stone review in the "Critical reception" section. It seems to break the flow (starting a topic sentence about positive reviews followed by a favorable review). Wouldn't it be stronger to pair the Rolling Stone review with the AllMusic review to make the second paragraph about the mixed reactions and then bump up the Billboard review to the first paragraph, which would then solely consist of the positive reviews? Critical reception sections are always the worst to write and you did a much better job than I usually do, but just keep in mind that you want this section to flow and form a cohesive narrative for the reader.

Done [5]

@Carbrera: Great work with the article. This is what I noticed from my first reading of the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will read through it one more time and most likely pass it. Again, excellent job with this article and those relating to it. Seems like you will have a good topic coming up soon with all of these. Aoba47 (talk) 19:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Aoba47: I addressed your concerns and left you some comments. Thank you so much! Carbrera (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2017 (UTC).

Everything looks good. Great work with this! ✓ Pass Aoba47 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)