Talk:Chinese Democracy/GA2

GA Review

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: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 14:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm Calvin999, and I am reviewing this Good Article nomination. — Calvin999

Okay, this is ridiculous. Calvin, are you ever going to do this? It's now been over three weeks. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 13:27, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I completely forgot. I will do it today. You should have pinged me! — Calvin999 09:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I forget things too. No prob. I meant to. '^^ dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 16:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can the album be three types of rock and one type of metal? I find it concerning when info boxes list more than one genre.

I've been involved in this part. Critics can have different opinions, not all of them will always agree on one; surely you've heard this? Strangely enough, nobody has called it simply "heavy metal" that I can find. Side note: Everyone has come to consensus that GnR are both rock and metal on the main page, at least. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 00:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So it's essentially rock? — Calvin999 09:02, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, but these genres have been cited in the prose of the article. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 12:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal needs to be removed for sure if you can't source it. — Calvin999 21:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is sourced. Several times. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 00:28, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry misread your previous comment. — Calvin999 09:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Link studio album
, released on November → . It was released on November
(1993), and → in 1993 (add the month two, as you do later on in sentence)
Despite debuting at → Although it debuted at
domestically undersold expectations. → Why? Briefly.
I feel like the opening of the second para in the lead is coming too late. The lead needs restructuring. It should reflect the layout of the article.
perfectionism caused → Comma needed in the middle
Personnel and legal reasons, as well as Rose's alleged perfectionism caused the album to be delayed multiple times, including missing an announced March 2007 release date, before being released in November 2008. → Long winded and too many clauses

Lead appears to be

Done by Ringerfan23. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 13:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't re-sorted the layout of the lead yet, but the rest is done. RF23 (talk) 21:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pass by comments: The charts need to be by alphabetical order per MOS:CHARTS. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 15:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get someone to help me with that part? I've never figured out formatting on charts on tables on wiki and anytime I've tried to edit them I end up just hilariously breaking them. RF23 (talk) 23:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) WP:GACR 1b: it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Compliance of MOS:CHARTS is not required. sst✈ 04:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Calvin999: any update to this? SST flyer 15:14, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry been caught up in other things and was away for a while. I will finish this week. — Calvin999 15:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carrying on

Some article wide points:

Most paragraphs consist of very short single clause sentences. It makes for a fairly disjointed read because there is no flow or fluidity from one sentence to another. This is particularly evident in the Background section.
Paragraphs significantly vary in length. Some sections have two or three line paragraphs, followed by a five or six line paragraph.
Avoid single sentence sections, such as Censorship in the People's Republic of China and Awards and nominations.
It's a very large article which a lot of detail. Couldn't some parts be trimmed down and told more concisely? Just streamlined more.

More specifically:

Some problematic links
Make sure there is appropriate linking, such as Duff McKagan and Gilby Clarke (and more) in the Background section, as this is the first time they are mentioned.
The last two paragraphs of Style and composition are huge.
The fourth para of the same section has an overload of citations after the genres. There shouldn't be that many citations lumped together like that.
I don't think there's a need for five sub-sections in Controversy and lawsuits. Surely this can be amalgamated more efficiently?
All lyrics written by Axl Rose, "Madagascar" → Full stop not comma, and link sample
I'm sure the Personnel could be better organised? You don't need to list each and every engineering assistance separately. Just write Engineering assistance: and list the names separated by commas
Charts table should be alphabetical. US, not U.S.
No certifications table? IMPORTANT: I tried to make one, but it was erased because some problem with the references (sorry, im no expert). The important thing here is that the certifications and sales information in this page is absolute BS. For example, the commercial performance section cited blabbermouth as source about that Chinese Democracy have been certified with LOTS of sales in different countries. But most of them are not true. It says that Chinese Democracy have a x3 Platinium certification in Canada, but thats nuts, because CD is not even Gold there. A 1 minute search in Google and at the canadian album certificartion page for GNR (http://musiccanada.com/gold-platinum/?fwp_gp_search=guns%20n%20roses) is the evidence. I uploaded a certification table with the very few certifications that i found. It would be great if someone with the knowledge could erase the blabbermouth lies in the commercial section and re-do my certification table with the actual certifications and properly cited sources. Thanks for your time and i hope that if this should not be here, someone could move it and not just erase it and let the lies intact.
Picture of Ulrich Schnauss doesn't add anything.

References:

What is the reliability of "Blabbermouth" for example? I've never heard of it and it doesn't sound terribly reliable.

Your work that I've seen appears only to pertain to pop music, mostly. That would explain why you don't know it. Blabbermouth is a hard rock/heavy metal webzine. It has been accepted in most cases, but it should be avoided if it's the only one reporting a subject. It's also not allowed for BLP statements. But it's listed on the acceptable source list, so it seems okay. They just don't list authors, which raises skepticism in a lot of people. dannymusiceditor ^{what'd I do now?} 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't WP:SHOUT
The first time a magazine/paper etc (i.e. work or publisher is mentioned) it needs to be linked. None here are.
10 for example is missing an access date
MTV is formated in multiple different ways. Be consistent.
35 is missing a work/publisher
Some have work, some publisher, some work and publisher, and some have neither. Be consistent.

I think this needs to go through a peer review really. It's not the job of a GAN reviewer to suggest whole sentences and paragraphs for re-writing and in turn providing re-writes, and that is what I feel like needs doing. It all feels a bit jumbled and messy. That's the problem with this much detail. If it's not done right it's hard to read and people lose interest. I'm asking for a second opinion. — Calvin999 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for second opinion. This is a difficult one. The bibliography and reference sections are substantial and show a good amount of research put into the citations. This is normally ample enough as a basis for Ga nomination. However Calvin999 is raising multiple points concerning the Prose quality of the article from top to bottom, with which this second opinion would need to agree. Even if one looks at the lede by itself, which should be a straightforward summary of the article, then one finds sentences such as: "In 1994, Guns N' Roses' progress on a follow-up to "The Spaghetti Incident?" was halted due to creative differences between members band." This seems wordy for the lede and appears to be the equivalent of "Guns N' Roses progress on "Chinese Democracy" was halted due to creative differences between band members." Calvin999 has already listed many such prose issues. A very modest suggestion would be to call for a simple re-draft of the full article in straightforward prose to enhance readability of the narrative. There is a very substantial citations section for the article which should make this easier to accomplish for the nominating editor. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your second opinion Fountains-of-Paris. I'm going to stick with what I originally suggested: that this would be better of going through a peer review or having someone from the GOCE go through it. As a result, I'm failing this article. If you do one of the aforementioned suggestions, then this should be able to pass third time around. — Calvin999 17:56, 17 April 2016 (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.