Talk:Stargate (record producers)/GA1

GA Review

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

Hi, I am reviewing this article for GA and will be entering comments and suggestions below. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• Stargate broke into the American recording industry with the Billboard Hot 100 number-one single "So Sick" by American singer Ne-Yo, that they produced and co-wrote with Ne-Yo. - could you get a date in right away, so the reader has a timeframe?

• Copy edited. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• The team was fond of R&B and hip hop songs - what does this mean? That they played them a lot?

• The source does not say so. It states the two were lovers of such genres. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• they ventured into the European market where, at the time, was dominated by pop acts - where did their pop sound come from?

• Changed that line. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Formative years" does not explain much about their music, how it developed and what makes it distinctive; does not give a "flavor" of their music.

• Added info. --Efe (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe you could describe the individual members more. Where they came from, how they got together, aside from "first" meeting.

Sources provide only a little of their individual backgrounds. --Efe (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• In general, the article does not feel very complete. There needs to be a section on their effect on music. Also, the article does not flow as a coherent story, explaining the arise and development of this group and what is original about them.
• Can you add an "Impact" or "Critical acclaim" section?

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have added a section for critical responses. --Efe (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Sorry, I accidentally reviewed this article! —Mattisse (Talk) 21:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

• As for the other comments, I am worried online sources can't give me enough. But I'll try to scour the net. --Efe (talk) 05:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• There is lacking any explanation of the individual roles of the members of the song-writing trio, or much description of their production methods. Considering their huge discography Stargate production discography, no reasons for their phenomenal success are given. I understand that your sources do not provide much (I read through several of the articles) but there is no sense of what they brought to song writing and producing that accounts for their success or describes their unique talent.

• Not much info given about the way they work together. As far as my "googling" ability is concerned, I can only give that info. --Efe (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I take some of that back. The section "Influences and style" is good. If you could explain in the "Formative years" how they developed to that point, the process, that would be great.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:37, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Ahm, I don't get your point. Sorry. Could you clarify please what I am missing in the formative years? --Efe (talk) 04:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• It is a little confusing, as "Formative years" and "Influences and style" somewhat overlap in subject. "Formative years" is to explain how they developed their style or mode of operation? It seems arbitrary to some degree how the information is divided up. (Perhaps the sections should be combined, or else clearly differentiate their development from their current work. Also, the critic's reaction under "influences and style" probably should go under "Critical reception".

Changed to "Formation and early works". About the critic's reaction under "Influences and style", I think it should go there because its still a description of their music, although from critics. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "In their usual production style" - this comes far down in the article, and it has not been explained what their usual production style is. It would be helpful to know at what point they developed this style and what influenced it. And to know sooner in the article what it is.

• I think the following lines are the explanation. That's what I only got from New York Times. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Under "Formative years" is says "While in Europe", but it has not been explained when they went to Europe, unless you are referring to being in Scandinavia as Europe. But if that is the case, why do you suddenly refer to Europe here?

• That's what the sources says. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Notable collaborations" - this seems to be a series of awards. So wouldn't that go under "Critical acclaim" or "Awards" or under "Critical acclaim"?

• Not necessarily a series of awards but their collaborations accompanied by awards. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Songwriters of the Year accolade at the 2007 ASCAP/PRS" - this is confusing as it doesn't go to an award. Also, the use of slashes is discouraged, unless the actual name contains a slash.

• Its linked and that's actually how sources refer to the award. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• On the very positive side, it seems like the information is basically here, it is the organization that needs tweaking. Also, some explanation of the enormous list under Stargate production discography

—Mattisse (Talk) 23:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• I asked for a second opinion from another editor and this is the feedback I received:

• • The prose is often awkward, sometime unclear, and too verbose in places. Needs a big copyedit.
• "Formative years":
• Overall the best-written section, but ...
• "Notable collaborations":
  • "gave American singer-songwriter Lionel Richie his first R&B hit, "I Call It Love", in 10 years" is awkward, I think "gave American singer-songwriter Lionel Richie his first R&B hit in 10 years, "I Call It Love"" would be much clearer.

• I am worried. Its a dangling modifier, although not so sure. The song should go after the word hit not years. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • I suggest "With the team's contributions to music, Stargate emerged as the number-one hot producer ..."

• For what reason? I think it helps to clarify. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Who sang "So Sick", "Sexy Love" and "Unfaithful"? Re ""So Sick", this might cast light on a later issue.

• I think these are explained in the section "Notable collaborations". --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Knowles" puzzled me until I realised it was the artist generally known as Beyoncé. Should say " Beyoncé".

• Nope. Should be her last name, unless she professionally drops her surname. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Other ventures":
  • " will be 50/50 partnership" - " will be a 50/50 partnership".

• Added "a". --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • Should w-link "Def Jam".

• Linked. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Eriksen and Hermansen's connection with Jay-Z began with the release of "So Sick", having met Ty Ty Smith, Def Jam A&R and longtime friend of Jay Z, then CEO of the label" is a horrible sentence:
    • It makes the seqnece of events totally unclear.
    • "Def Jam A&R and longtime friend of Jay Z, then CEO of the label" is telegraphically terse - "Def Jam's A&R manager and a longtime friend of Jay Z, who was then CEO of the label" would be better, but the best phrasing probably depends on how the events are clarified.

• Tried to copy edit. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Eriksen joined Hermansen at EMI Music Publishing as he has signed a global co-publishing deal with the company" ??

• Fixed. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Prior to the deal, EMI has been involved in the developments of Hermansen for nearly ten years since he signed a deal in 1999" - "Hermansen's projects"?

• Fixed. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "Hermansen and Eriksen will also continue with their joint-venture partnership, Stellar Songs, with EMI"

• Removed. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Influences and style":
  • "Chiefly producing R&B and pop songs, Stargate's genre also includes hip hop" - pointless, ungrammatical (dangling participle) and misuse of "genre". I'd scrap the sentence.

• Not a help at all. Suggestion? --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• • "They'reTheir inclination in enthusiasm for music started ..."

• Fixed, but I use interest. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Critical reception":
  • Most of section "Critical reception" is quotes of 4 separate complaints about replicating Irreplaceable, which could be rolled up into 1 sentence.

• Perhaps you give me some idea how to do it. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Hopefully this offers you some more concrete information on how to improve the article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 17:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments. --Efe (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Sets the context b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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:

Congratulations! —Mattisse (Talk) 22:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)