Talk:Unwanted (album)

Unwanted (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 1, 2023. (Reviewed version).

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pop music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles LGBT studies This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles Women in Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Reviewer: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 00:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post a review for this shortly. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a once over of the article, but there's a significant issue that prevents a more thorough review. Most of the prose here is made up of quotations, with very little original writing. This article is going to need some reworking so that most of it is written in your own words before the prose and sourcing are evaluated. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thebiguglyalien: I took a crack at fixing these issue. Let me know if it's looking any better.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gen. Quon It's looking good. I added a few more minor notes below. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good! I'll add the article to the list of GAs, and I'll add the album to my regular listening. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written

• Some critics, however, felt that the album was too prosaic and derivative. – "however" can be lost without changing the meaning.

  Done.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The semicolons in this article could probably just be full stops.

  Done.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• was released in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, – "during" is more concise than "in the midst of"

  Done.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Baron-Gracie also noted that – "noted" should only be used when someone is making an objective observation.

  Done.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• "Content" is a vague heading. "Music and lyrics", "composition", and "style" are all headings that I commonly see for sections like this.

  Done.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Other reviews were less complimentary. – This sentence doesn't add anything.

  Removed.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The charts section could be merged with the commercial performance section.

  Do you mean merging the "Commercial performance" and "Charts" subsections? This doesn't seem to be the norm.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There just seemed to be some redundancy between these two sections. It's not a major issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A couple notes for the revised article:

• Baron-Gracie's experience with self-centered music industry insiders. – The article should make it clear that "self-centered" is her opinion.

  Tweaked.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• all the while being heavier and more substantial – It's not clear what this means.

  Adjusted to make clearer.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiable with no original research

• Overall, this article is really quote-heavy. Unless the specific wording is what's being discussed, it's better to paraphrase the quote. Right now the article looks large portions of it were constructed through copy and paste, which can become a plagiarism issue (even if it's otherwise cited). This is present throughout the article, but WP:RECEPTION gives some advice on how to avoid this in reception sections specifically.

  OK, I removed some of the quotes and rewrote others. I mostly left in quotes that describe the subjective je ne sais quoi of the various songs, as that allows me to talk about what they're 'like' without dabbling in original research.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 14:03, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Better, though I personally would have replaced a little more of the quotation, particularly under reception to replace it with brief summaries of what the critics commented on. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks:

• [5] Qureshi – Does this support that "Lies" was released on 9 May? Because it looks like that's just when the news article was published. This source also can't support the details of the album's overall release, since it was published before the release took place. These details could have changed between May and August. All I know from this source is that they planned to release it on 12 August, not that they actually did so.

  The article came out the same day as the single (if you go to the YouTube video, you'll see that it was released on 9 May). To the second part of your comment, I just swapped the citation with the Apple Music ref that explicitly states the release date.--Gen. Quon_[Talk] 21:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• [17] DeCaro – Good.
• [29] Major – Good.
• [31] Price – Good.
• [67] Clayton-Lea – Good.

Broad in its coverage

Covers the standard aspects of an album: production, music, release, and reception.

Neutral

No neutrality issues. Due weight is maintained throughout the article.

Stable

No recent disputes.

Illustrated

The album cover has a valid non-free use rationale. All other images appear to be correctly tagged as Creative Commons.