Talk:Bridge over Troubled Water/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: WesleyDodds (talk · contribs) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC) Starting review. Off the bat I see some serious issues. Details forthcoming. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I will remove the tags that were inserted shortly before the nomination. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I acknowledge that the tags are very recent additions and that you are in the process of addressing them, so my review will not weight heavily on them. Upon first glance the tags were my primary concern, so the sooner you sort them out, the better. I hope to have it ready in an hour or two. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

regarding tags: the discussion above makes it sound as though the tags are a nuisance to be removed without examination, like litter. For this article, they're simply the most effective way to identify issues that need improvement, and simply removing them because an editor feels they're unnecessary doesn't cut it. Two examples:

there is a description of the album in comparison to another rooted in colors. I added a ^{[clarification needed]} tag, since there is no explanation as to how a music album, based in sound, could be described with colors. Perhaps the cited source does this; if so, it ought to get included here.

It makes sense for me...grey and black usually means gloomy, sad, etc--Tomcat (7) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that does make sense upon reflection. But there's no explanation as to how the critic feels the albums compared are so similar, when the only quote talks about the difference between black and white versus color. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

there is also a passing mention that The Boxer was alleged to have been about Bob Dylan. Even if this is covered in the sources, this is a major allegation that needs to be further explained in detail in the body of the article, not just the reflst.

The album should summarize, not explain in further detail. That should be done in The Boxer (song).--Tomcat (7) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need a detailed story, but if you're going to raise a subject you should at least elaborate on it. You describe it as though the allegation was well-known. It's not, at least not to me. So either expand on it a little or drop it I would say. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The history of this article shows that there are many issues, in terms of content, foreign-language (non-English) sources being used, flat out factual inaccuracies, etc, that when raised, get dismissed by this editor, often without being addressed, as though the concerns are a nuisance. I may not have contributed the bulk of the content here, but am just as interested in seeing this article improved, and look forward to seeing the reviewer's take on things. Echoedmyron (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are no inaccuracies, and German-language sources are acceptable.--Tomcat (7) 13:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't saying German is unacceptable, however the interpretations of what a source means in English are sometimes dubious, and non-German speakers can't verify their accuracy. Echoedmyron (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By no means do I consider the tags a nuisance instead of important cleanup notices. What I meant to convey was that they were issues flagged after the article was nominated (and pretty recently, too), and given that the primary contributor acknowledged them and was getting around to addressing them as soon as possible, I was going to focus on other issues first. There's no doubt that they all need to be taken care of before I can pass this article. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Well-written - Prose could use some polish. The lead in particular introduces items without sufficient context (Where do Art and Paul from from? What's their professsion? What exactly is The Graduate?). I wouldn't call Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Albums of All Time a "must have" list. Why does the mention of the duo's breakup come after mentioning retrospective acclaim? Several numbers under 10 are written out as numerals instead of words. That quote from Song Talk is awful long; please summarize its contents. "After the breaking for Christmas" is an odd phrase. Numbers that start off sentences need to be written out as words. "Both musicians became rather independent" is fairly colloquial for an encyclopedia article.

I don't think that belongs to the lead. Removed must-have. Done, though the previous version was better. Shortened quote. Done. Done. Not sure about that.--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research - ChartStats is not considered a reliable source. Official Charts Company is not the one stating that the album has sold over 25 million copies. What makes TheSecondDisc a reliable source? It appears to be nothing more than a WordPress blog. I also wonder about InfoDisc.fr. The sentence about "Feuilles-Oh/Do Space Men Pass Dead Souls on Their Way to the Moon?" is uncited. Find other sources than reviews for factual information about reissues--album reviews are opinion pieces, not reportage or historical overviews. There are a few unformatted references present. Ref 2 is missing info; what publication is it from? One of the Allmusic refs lists the publisher before the website name, while all the others do the opposite. Review your references and standarize them. Review WP:NOENG in regards to the German-language book being cited.

Replaced Chart Stats. Fixed, though not sure how it happened. Added Browne. Per WP:GOODCHARTS, infodisc is a reliable source. Done . Most of the sources in that section are simply additional. I am having troubles finding more sources. Formatting of references is not required per the criterions. --Tomcat (7) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage - The Content section is too bloated and does not adequately utilize Wikipedia:Summary style. Most of these songs have their own pages--there's no reason why the title track needs three paragraphs dedicated to it here. The goal is not to detail every song one by one; we're not writing books here. Provide an overview of the album's sound as a whole, providing specifics when necessary. See Loveless (album)#Music for an example of how to summarize an album's content. There are no gaps in coverage.

However, there are GA and FA albums that describe every song comprehensively. I think Loveless is not a good example, as Bridge features a more individual sound, while the songs in Loveless are similar.--Tomcat (7) 13:47, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've seen recent album GAs and FAs that go into extensive detail about their tracklists, but that doesn't necessarily mean they should. In fact, judged against the summary style criterion for GAN, they are required to avoid going into such detail, and that certainly applies here. As I stated before, it's especially relevant since most of these songs have their own pages; much of the detail listed currently in this page should be shunted off over there. Keep only what is necessary for an unfamiliar reader to understand the album as a greater whole. Is This It is another example you can look at: it describes each song one by one, but in a very lean, crisp manner. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:35, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is also a featured article. I am not sure what should be removed, I think it summarizes very well. Another example would be The Way I See It, which is much more comprehensive than Bridge. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, saying other stuff exists doesn't justify excess details. Let's analyze the three paragraphs dedicated to "The Boxer" to ascertain what is relevant and what can go into the song article. Everything about the meaning of the song can be moved, unless there are elements of it analyzed by secondary source as part of an overview of the album's overall themes. The basics of the recording (significance of the length and duration) can stay, but you probably can move the listing of everyone who played on it. The fact about Dylan covering it is not relevant here, so move it to the song article. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done. --Tomcat (7) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - Fairly neutral

Stable - Echoedmyron has mentioned disagreements over content. I see a talk page debate about "El Condor Pasa" from September and two recent move discussions.

Illustrations - Image checks out

I'm putting this on hold for the standard seven days so the issues raised can be addressed. The article needs some work, but it's not so deficient that a week of concerted effort couldn't fix everything. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"After the breaking for Christmas" was an error on my part; the original phrase was "After the Christmas break", which suggests a defined timeframe that everyone knows about, which isn't of course the case. In changing it I neglected to remove the "the". Have corrected now. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a little over a week, and though much progress has been made, issues remain. Chartstats (ref 55) and the Wordpress blog are still present, an unaddressed [when/] tag lingers, and the content section still requires trimming (the example of what needs to be cut in "The Boxer" was just that: an example). Unfortunately I'm going to have to fail this for now. But don't be discouraged: the article has indeed been improved since the review started, and with a bit more work it will be ready for yet another GA nom. I wish you the best of luck. WesleyDodds (talk) 14:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had added two more sources from books to back the claims, and I already cut many information. I am not sure what type of article you exactly need.--Tomcat (7) 16:44, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I want trim anything. The article is very comprehensive, and nothing in the WP:GA? indicates that something should be cut for the nominator's satisfaction.--Tomcat (7) 16:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Good Article criteria, part of the broadness criteria is "it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)", which it currently fails. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article is broad and briefly summarizes the content. I don't know why the song's meanings should be removed. It passes WP:GA?. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This GAN was closed a day ago. You may renominate the article, but I strongly suggest having another editor look through the article first to help you sort out any remaining issues, especially since the sourcing and broadness issues remain. I wish you good luck on bringing this article up to GA status. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]