Talk:The Remix/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: FeuDeJoie (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Will be reviewing soon, Thanks --FeuDeJoie (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction

• "The Remix is a remix album by American recording artist Lady Gaga released in Japan on March 3, 2010." It reads strangely the release date on the end of the opening sentence, change to somethng like "Released in Japan on March 3, 2010, it contains remixes..." Done
• "A revised version of the tracklist was prepared for release in additional markets, beginning on May 3, 2010." - You haven't specified one market, "additional markets", its confusing state what was released where. Done
• "A number of recording artists have remixed the songs" - It doesn't read well change to something like "have produced remixes".
• "The remixed versions features uptempo and altered vocals from Gaga, while switching the tempo of the songs to an opposite composition." - I don't get it at all, and they aren't all up-tempo; listen to "LoveGame (Robots to Mars Remix)" this needs to be altered or removed, it doesn't make any sense. Done
• "It reached the top of the charts in" - take out the second "the", it is ungrammatical. Done
• "while received gold certification in Belgium, Brazil and Russia." - Ungrammatical, "while" is definitely not the right linking word and the sentence generally makes little grammatical sense. Done

Overall this section is minimal and ungrammatical. I think critical opinion should be expanded as should content and you need to focus on the two releases of the Japanese and International versions, you cannot tell from the introduction that there are two in existence.

Per WP:LEAD, it should be a summary of the entire article, that's starting from the background section to the end. Hence I don't believe expansion of the lead by fluffing it further, will work and would be against MOS. That includes critical opinion, which is again a summary, not a one-on-one analysis of the critics. Addressed other issues. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All  Done :)

Background

• "On April 15, 2010, The Guardian reported that a number of artists contributed to the compilation, including Pet Shop Boys, Passion Pit and rocker Marilyn Manson, for a remix album, titled The Remix." - "rocker" is an issue, change to rock musician and generally the sentence is bad, it is messy. "The compilation" we no nothing of a compilation you could change to "a compilation"? Done
• "the several single releases." - remove several. Done
• Chew Fu remix of "LoveGame", Passion Pit remixed "Telephone" - the comma should not be there it, if he remixed them both it should be "and". Done
• "U.S." - US Done

Corrected all. This is all that could be found of the background, being a minor release. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

All  Done :)

Composition

Generally the section needs a lot of work, the songs aren't in order whilst you are describing them which makes for tricky reading.

Reorganized, looks great :)

• Things like "also manipulating Gaga's vocals" - How? Try and expand the section and the descriptions. Done
• Generally the sentences are too short and they need to be elongated and linked together. Sentences like "Sound of Arrows remixed "Alejandro", changing the dark nature of its music into a bright, summery jam. "Bad Romance" was remixed by Starsmith, making it a complete dance track." could be merged as they are short and it makes for difficult reading. Done

Addressed. Again, the issue does not lie with the composition being in order, but that there is a composition section at least. Most of the contemporary remix albums do not have reviewers (if any) talk about the songs, rather boisterously declaring an artist's achievement. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Critical reception

• "...complimented the piano and voice version of "Poker Face" and said" needs to be changed to something like "and called it" - There is no link, the "smartest track" could be any. Done
• The Prefix magazine response has little relevance, it is a description of the band remove it or find a better quote. Done
• The entire second paragraph is very "and (this person) said/ commented" it needs work. The Emancipation of Mimi has a lot of great examples. Done

This para deteriorated since I was on long vacation from February. Nevertheless, rephrased. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Chart performance

• "the album also charted in Australia, Belgium (Flanders and Wallonia), the Netherlands and New Zealand." - When did it chart, what brackets did it chart within, it is too obscure.

Much better

• The Canadian chart info should be moved to the US paragraph as it is such a small sentence and it is part of North American territory. Done
• "The Remix has sold more than 500,000 copies worldwide." - this belongs at the end of the section it doesn't read well being in the middle. Done
• "Billboard's" - Italics. Done

The section needs expansion, it gives little detail about limited countries, sales information isn't great either. It doesn't look like other articles you have written The Fame Monster would be a great example of what to do with the section as you wrote it already that shouldn't be a problem.

I think you are misinformed that all markets need a chart-by-chart analysis. Belgium, NZ, Dutch are all pretty minor markets of music and having an in-depth analysis of their chart runs would be crossing WP:UNDUE. You have the analysis and chart-run of major markets like US, UK, Japan and Australia, which is sufficient. Sales information is not available for all the markets, except US and UK, barring the worldwide sales. So adding any other sales info is WP:OR. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Much better reads much easier :)

Track listing

No references?

• "The US version of the album only contains tracks 1 through 11 of the standard edition, with track 6 omitted." - You definitely need to add the US track listing to its own listing, this isn't referenced either! Done

Added reference and tracklist +credits. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Release history

• Why has Mexico got two release dates, it doesn't specify what the difference is or anything? Done

References

• Some of the references need reformatting also, some are listed in the discussion page that haven't been dealt with.

I could not find any problematic reference formatting, can you please point out? — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, I thought I spotted one upon my review but yep they all seem to be in order.--FeuDeJoie (talk) 15:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Overall

Overall this needs a lot of work, the prose is messy and generally it doesn't seem like something you have written. I am placing this article on hold for seven days from 19 June, but it isn't at all near GA criteria at the moment. Also it seems quite skinny for an album that I have heard so much about, there is little quotes involved and it could almost look like an unofficial release. It needs major expansion and work. Thanks --FeuDeJoie (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I will say here again, I believe you are totally misinformed if you think that this album was extremely popular, or notable on a level with The Fame Monster. No remix albums are that notable when released in lieu of their parent albums charting pretty strongly. And a bulk of content is not a criteria for WP:GA. See Hitmixes another completely minor release but is GA. It is not the amount of content which you add, determines its notability, but the subject itself. As for the album looking like an "unofficial release", you don't want me to goof up and content right? This is all that is present for this minor release and other issues are addressed to the best of my abilities. Please check and see if you can find anything smacking to you. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I do think generally it is a good article but it does read tricky sometimes. Quantity is not a problem at all, for a remix album is is quite a large one of that, that isn't my problem. What I have noted is that some sentences could deal with expansion whether that be a few words or whatever else. But the changes you have made have made significant progress but I will go over it again - I hope you don't think I am overly critical, it is generally a good article --FeuDeJoie (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just re-evaluated and it is much, much better. I think I did probably worry a bit too much about it. The Critical reception section flows extremely well and it makes for a really nice read. The article definitely nows passes GA criteria! Congratulations, great article. --FeuDeJoie (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the in-depth review. It certainly helped better the article. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 16:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)