Talk:Documentaly

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 22:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I will review this article later tonight. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 22:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• "The album is themed around the idea of a documentary..." Can you rephrase this sentence and possibly split it into two sentences?

How's that?

• Once again, please alter the lead to reflect the structure of the article. In this article, you take up the album's commercial performance at three different points in the lead, which is particularly confusing.

I'll fix this right at the end, just in case we decide to do some restructuring.

• "The album was awarded by critics..." Restructure this sentence. I would recommend: "The album was one of the 13 prize-winning entries for the 2012 CD Shop Awards, and iTunes Japan's iTunes Rewind 2011 awards named it the best album of the year."

Fixed.

Background and development

• In "background and development", I would trim your discussion of the previous album to one sentence and then keep everything starting with the sentence "In order for the band to sell more and become more well known..."

Any reason why? I'd incorporated that information as the relative commercial success, but disappointing in terms of the band's own expectations was something that affected the album's release. I'd say having the information about Kikuuiki is also fairly important, as it shows that the album was produced over the course of about a year. I've trimmed it a little, what do you think of this version?

• If you keep this part, replace "as much as it did" with "well" as redundant.

Fixed.

• Restructure the sentence about their first concert to specify: their first concert of what material?

Like this? The concert wasn't a tour to promote any specific release, it was a one off.

• There's some information about singles in "Background and development" that I think would either go better in "Writing and production" and "promotion", as that's where singles are usually discussed.

The singles were released well in advance of the album, before the album was even conceptually thought of. Singles are usually discussed like that in Western album releases as they're almost always released after the album's been released (or at least mostly recorded). I've moved the paragraph about their Zepp tour and the album's preceding single to the promotional section, do you think that's a good balance?

• "In addition to it being just a theme for the album" this clause is very awkwardly phrased.

Fixed.

• In the first part of the third paragraph, I would either remove the date for the single release or the date of the disaster.

Done.

• "Sakanaction cancelled..." later in the sentence, there's a parallelism problem in your verbs: you say "preferred to focus" and then "directly promoting".

Does it sound better this way?

• There's a typo "flt" which I believe is supposed to be "felt"

Fixed.

• I would add that it was no longer so prominent in Japan

Fixed.

• Just say "people" rather than "these people"

Fixed.

Writing and production

• I would shorten the first subsection to simply "Creation"

It is already, isn't it? Or do you mean the entire section?

• "He focused on questioning" Parallelism issue

Altered, but I can reword it again if you'd like something different.

• "As Yamaguchi" replace as with because

Fixed.

• "As Yamaguchi's workload was lessened..." repetition of felt

Fixed.

• "Documentaly was officially announced for release on August 1." I would put this inWhat "promotion and release"

Oh, that statement was to show that they hadn't even finished the album by that point. Is it better this way?

• "was seen as a condensation" too vague

Fixed.

• Why are some of the song titles in Japanese and some in English?

Hundreds of years of English language cultural hegemony, plus it's seen as trendy. See for yourself!

• How is self-titling the album reflective of the documentary theme?

Fixed. As in, a documentary of themselves.

• Use the template {{sic}}

Done.

• I would place the sentence about the release of the album's title in this subsection.

Done

Promotion and release

• What is "Natalie" and why is it reliable?

One of the largest music-related news sites in Japan, Natalie (website).

• I would split this into two subsections: "Singles" and "Performances"

Most of the material in this section isn't to do with single releases or performances, so how about 'Album promotion' / 'Performances'?

Reception

• Can you put a critical consensus at the top of the first section?

Done.

• Once again, no negative reviews to be found?

Nope! No Western reviews, and RSJ gave it quite a good review.

• I would shorten the discussion of some of the reviews.

Which parts do you think need to be shortened?

• Be sure you put all your review in the album ratings box.

Some of the reviews are for the singles individually, and not for the album, so they wouldn't belong in the box. Did I miss an album one?

References

• What is "CD Shop Clerks Union"?

The union of workers at music shops, who decided to create an award (like how the Oscars are voted on by people in the film industry)

• Ref 16 (this) and ref 45 (this) are dead.

Fixed.

@Prosperosity: I am so sorry for the delay. I have been ridiculously busy as of late and thus have taken an involuntary WikiBreak. :) Anyways, here are the rest of my comments. I understand if you can't get to them at this time. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 19:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's all good. I'll try! I fly out in about 18 hours, so I might be able to get some free time. I might have some down time when I get to Okinawa, too. --Prosperosity (talk) 03:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

 Doing...

Whoops, I got notified about the first time this page got edited but not the second! I'll do these fix-ups in the next few hours. --Prosperosity (talk) 03:03, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Johanna: There we go! Sorry it took so long for me to notice. --Prosperosity (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Johanna, it appears that Prosperosity did some major edits to the article later on March 29 and again on April 2. Have all the issues you were concerned about been addressed now, or is there more work that Prosperosity needs to do before the review can continue? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: That's strange–their April 2 edits did not appear on my watchlist for whatever reason. Anyways, I can definitely Pass now. Johanna^{(talk to me!)} 15:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)