Talk:Reckoning (R.E.M. album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I'm reviewing this, anyone else is welcome of course. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well-written: The prose is clean and easy to read. A couple of quibbles:

The lede seems a bit thin. I don't necessarily think it needs to be longer, but by the third line we're talking about binaural recording. It seems to me that I read about this album making it into a RS or Billboard all-time list somewhere; is that accurate? If so of course, it could be included here. Also, the last line of the lede is a bit awkward with all the dependent clauses and parenthetical phrases, perhaps that could be broken into separate sentences.

It didn't make the Rolling Stone 500 albums list; only Murmur, Automatic for the People, and Document did. I typically refrain from putting those sorts of details in the lead, because they are relatively minor points in the wider scope of critical commentary.WesleyDodds (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, expanded a bit more. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first section about Buck wanting a double album is bit vague - maybe something like "argued unsuccessful for a double album."

Fixed. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot to wikify Michael Stipe! Along the same lines, his shyness of those days is well-known, was that the source of the difficulty in getting good vocal tracks from him? Was the problem that he always sang too quietly (yes :) ) or was that only on 7 Chinese Bros.? I think another line or two here would really solidify this section, and you might be able to include a mention of this in the lede.

I linked Stipe in the lead. Stipe was definitely shy during the first few albums, but his shyness isn't a factor in how he recorded Reckoning, judging from the sources I have. He was just totally worn out. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wait, my mistake; I was going to mention Stipe in the lead but forgot to put him in. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable: - Well cited with in-line citations; I'll have to AGF on the book references, but it certainly is in keeping with what I otherwise have read. Good number of sources overall, understandibly reliant on the books, but not problematic.

If you really want, you can view some of the books on Google Book Search.

Broad in its coverage: - Does a nice job of covering recording, release and critical reception, no issues here.

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias. - Maintains an appropriate tone throughout. Well-sourced criticism is included.

Stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. - The article appears to be receiving a considerable number of edits recently, but they are of a constructive nature associated with the push to GA.

Illustrated, if possible, by images: Appropriate cover image with an appropriate fair use rationale.

Overall: On hold pending your input on my suggestions; I see nothing that should be a deal-breaker here.Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the changes here I'm going to promote the article. I do have a suggestion that I think reads better, but I'll leave to you to decide. The diff is here, I put it in and reverted so you could see if you agree. For me, having the bit about Stipe's exhaustion closer to the section that detailed the bands' rapid-paced schedule helped explain his difficulties. Also, having the label's interference next to the paragraph about the quick recording schedule worked for me. Since the article meets all criteria without this change, I will promote it, and offer this alternative for you to do with as you will. Thanks for an interesting read. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]