Talk:One Voice (Andrew Johnston album)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:One Voice (Andrew Johnston album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: My76Strat ^talk 12:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I find the article to be reasonably well written and consistent with style guidelines excepting the following, easily correctable, shortcomings:

• 1. There are situations where the punctuation is outside the quotation marks when the source verifies its presence deeming it more appropriate to include within. For example the source following "the vulnerability of this One Voice makes for a haunting musical experience". would move it inside per these guidelines
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• 2. Consistency within an article is paramount for good article status. This example: "One Voice entered the UK Album Chart at number 5, and finished the week at number 4. It stayed in the top 75 for five weeks", shows the number 5 rendered as 5 and five within close proximity. Maintain style consistency throughout the article. I also noticed the number 6 both ways and the number 7 spelled when it is within the range of numbers otherwise shown in cardinal form.
  • I thought for the chart results, "number 6" and the like preferable, but, generally, "six" and the like to be preferable. I believe I am consistent like that, though I can change it if you think it would read better. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I understand your rational but consistency within is always preferable. The Manual of Style says this but it is not a requirement for GA status (for FA it is). Nevertheless once you choose a style, which is to say choosing to display a particular number in cardinal form, or spelling it out, being consistent leads to better understanding. My76Strat ^talk 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • Just consider it food for thought because I am not requiring you to see consistency in the same light as me. It is perfectly reasonable for you to be consistent in the manner you described as well, and there really is no likelihood of anyone being confused. I particularly like all the other corrections you have made and intend to add this article to our list of good articles. Congratulations on a successful nomination. My76Strat ^talk 15:35, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict) I have changed it as you suggested. J Milburn (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
        • Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• 3. A good copy edit is invaluable and inevitably the best way to preclude nominating an article with obvious malformation such as the redundancy in this sentence: "The album was recorded immediately after Johnston finished the Britain's Got Talent live tour 'over a over a' six week period in London."
  • Fixed. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• 4. This sentence: "However, he was quickly signed with judge Simon Cowell's label", is the only place where I believe NPOV or wikipuffery could be claimed. Quickly seems intended to imply something and is itself subjective to POV. I do think it would be better to simply state that a thing subsequently happened without the hint of hyperbole.
  • Fair. I have rephrased- is that better? J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
• 5. There are a couple examples where the subject is said to talk to inanimate things, like newspapers; "spoke to local paper" "Speaking to the Daily Record". I would consider clear and concise prose which only could mean he was interviewed and not that perhaps he actually talks to newspapers.
  • I've rephrased in both those instances- better? J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I find the article to be factually accurate according to verifiable sources which are themselves reliable. Furthermore the article is sufficiently broad so as to be thorough without presenting extraneous detail. I would prefer an External links section with at least one link to the singers official page but would not withhold GA status if the contributors deem it unnecessary. I will place this review on hold to allow contributors to consider my suggestions and correct accordingly. By all means, if there is an issue which you disagree, let's talk about it here. Otherwise accept my appreciation for the earnest endeavors to make this article good, which are apparent. Best regards - My76Strat ^talk 14:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the review. J Milburn (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You are quite welcome and frankly more entitled to thanks than me. Do know that I appreciate, in fact need, such wholesome interactions. You can get burned out fast reverting vandalism, and I must admit it has been a therapeutic pleasure collaborating with you, and witnessing the well deserved end applicable to your justified means. With esteemed regards, My76Strat ^talk 22:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I can understand that. I still do some work with non-free content and some other areas, but I don't do the great amounts of new page patrol that I used to. I like to spend my time working on content and offering reviews- GAC, FAC, FPC... Pretty rewarding stuff, and, as you say, it's nice to interact with other people who care. J Milburn (talk) 22:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)