Talk:Stronger (Kelly Clarkson album)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 13:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review as I love Kelly Clarkson's music. Aoba47 (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the lead

Please combine the first two sentences of the lead's first paragraph together. You can look at 4 (Beyoncé album) for an example of what I mean. It reads a little bit too choppy to have two short sentences at the very beginning. Done
Do you need to mention the number of tracks on the standard and deluxe editions in the first paragraph of the lead? It seems a little bit like filler to me. Done
Please add an ALT description for the album cover in the infobox. Done I tried my best. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe the references in the lead are necessary as that information should be covered in the article somewhere with the citations attached. Done
In the lead, you say that the album had favorable reviews and then immediately mention what critics did not like about it. Would "mixed reviews" be more appropriate?

I have to disagree here, as Metacritic considers an average of 62 as "Generally favorable reviews" and not mixed reviews. Its uual for articles to have that mentio a positive and a negative opinion, is rare for crtics to share a universal love for a album, mainly on pop. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Aoba47 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remove "The album became a commercial success." from the lead and let the numbers and chart information speak for itself. Done
I am not sure this statement "and sustained commercial longevity for over a year" is appropriate as it reads like a fan wrote it. You could replace this with the amount of weeks that it stayed on the chart, but this part needs to be changed to avoid POV-related issues. Done

These are just my comments on the lead section. I will try to have my comments up by the end of today or tomorrow if possible. Just wanted to slowly work through this as it is a long article. You have done a great job. A majority of my comments are minor notes or more nitpicky than anything. Aoba47 (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

The first two sentences in the "Background" section have a similar opening phrase and should be altered/revised for variety. Done
The following quote ("Luckily, my label wanted me to do it as well.") can be paraphrased. The direct quote is not needed. Done
The last quote in the "Background" section is rather long. Parts of it can be paraphrased rather than using the entire quote.
I am not sure if the block quote in the "Development" section is necessary as the information can be paraphrased in the section (as it just listing her influences).
I would suggest revising the first sentence of the same section as the use of the quote is a little awkward. You use quotes a lot, but remember that paraphrasing is preferred over using quotes, unless the exact language is important.
Do you really need the two subsections in the "Production" section as the section as a whole is rather short? Done
I think portions of the "Title and concept" section can be incorporated into other sections instead of being separated from everything. The first paragraph could be put somewhere in the "Music and themes" subsection and the second paragraph can be put somewhere in the same subsection as the information directly deals with the music and themes of the album.
The following references are dead and either need to be replaced or found through a website archive: (References 118, 117, 81, 95, 100, 2, 45, 101, 71, 8, 29, 82, 55, 28, 24, 59, 143, 140).
Please add an ALT description for the image in the "Release and promotion" section.
I would add some variety and condense the information in the first sentences of the same section. I am not sure the value of the play-by-play breakdown of the album delays. I think this information can be condensed and said with less.
Look through the article and unlinking any song titles you have linked multiple times through the article. They only need to be linked once in their first mention in the body of the article, once in their first mention in the lead, once in the infobox, and once in the infobox. For instance, "Dark Side" is linked a few times in the body of the article.
The final sentence in the section about the single release for "Dark Side" needs a citation.
For the tour subsection, I would combine the smaller subsections for the Stronger Tour and 2012 Summer Tour (Kelly Clarkson and The Fray) into a single section as the paragraphs are relatively small. Keep them separate paragraphs to make it clear that they are referencing two separate tours, but two smaller subsections in a subsection can be confusing to read. Done
I do not understand the purpose for the separate "The Smoakstack Sessions EP" after the track listing. If you would like to put information about the EP in the article, then put it in one of the previous sections, most likely the "Recording" subsection. Done
MTV News should not be in italics in the references. Same goes for VOX. Check throughout the references for this.
Avoid SHOUTING (Putting reference titles in all caps). For instance, exclusive in reference 66 should not be in all caps (even if it is worded that way by the source itself). Done
What is the purpose of the "Further reading" section? I would think you can just incorporate this source directly into the article as it could be useful.

I will adding more comments throughout the day. Feel free to revise and comment on them or you can wait until the complete review is put up if you would prefer. I will let you know on here when the review is complete. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

I can tell a lot of excellent work has been put into this article, so I hope that my amount of comments is not discouraging. There are quite a few changes that need to be made to bring this to the level of a GA. I am going to put this on hold, but if you would prefer me to fail this so you can work on it on your own time, then let me know as well. I look forward to hearing back from you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Esmost: Just a note that I will close this review in two more days if I do not hear anything as it would be open for seven days at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 14:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I help? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: That would be great; I would greatly appreciate your input. Aoba47 (talk) 14:11, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the nominator's contributions, I can see that they have some intention of doing this, but Esmost hasn't edited Wikipedia in almost five Wikidays. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 22:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I strongly advise you to take another look at the references, as I was doing some work here as the nominator seems to be MIA, I found inconsistences on formatting (dates and accessdates) and the one that stroke me the most, blog, MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 15:20, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioSoulTruthFan: Thank you for your comments. I agree that there are issues with formatting and references. The above were just my first round of comments for this article. I will look at it again in the future. Aoba47 (talk)

Final verdict

I am going to ✗ Fail this for now. The nominator appears to be MIA despite a message on my talk page that he or she would be more involved. While I greatly appreciate MarioSoulTruthFan's help with this, I feel that it would be better to have the corrections down outside of GAN and then have it put up for GAN again at a later date. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.