Jump to content

Talk:Tragic Kingdom/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

(outdent)Well we have: '"When we got back, though, the problems started." Stefani has resumed the story. "We were writing and writing, but Interscope was being really wishy-washy about letting us go in the studio. Things just kept getting dragged out... ."

"Months and months and months," emphasizes Young, shaking his head. "We were going insane."' from the source. I'll track down something else if that isn't obvious enough. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We also have a new source: 'Things weren't always so rosy for No Doubt. Three difficult years have passed since the release of the group's self-titled debut on Interscope. Shortly after the album's delivery, the record label mysteriously pulled its support for the project, leaving the band to finance a tour on its own. Undaunted, the group spent the first part of '93 working on new music, turning out roughly 50 fresh songs. They found a producer to work with, approached the record company with all their ideas and were indefinitely put on hold.' -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's all solid info (and it should be incorporated into the article at some point), but calling it a loss of faith is still a leap. Probably best to remove that clause and not attribute a motive until a reference is found that backs it up unequivocally. —Zeagler (talk) 18:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)  Fixed[reply]
  • 3. Broad in its coverage
    • I think the mention of the band's releasing two singles from The Beacon Street Collection independently goes beyond the scope of the article, especially since the "independent" point is made in the surrounding sentences.
    • Including in the prose all the chart placements of the singles makes for a difficult read. Maybe it can be summarized a bit. —Zeagler (talk) 02:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias
    • Lots of POV phrases with regard to sales numbers and chart positions – just stick to the numbers DoneTezkag72 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "performed moderately well", "commercially successful", "crossover success", "greatest hit", "commercial failure", "modest success", etc. DoneTezkag72 (talk) 21:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • others remain —Zeagler (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tell me where, so I can go there and try to fix 'em. Tezkag72 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Search the page for "commercial failure", "moderately well", "commercially successful", "crossover success", "greatest hit", "modest success", "success", "poorly", and "commercial success".
            • Done, although I'd like to keep a single mention of "commercial success" in the release and impact section. If an album that goes diamond in the US and Canada, platinum in the UK and 3 x platinum is Australia isn't a commercial success, I don't know what is. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • All right, fix the two "commercial failure" instances and we'll call it good. Either replace with sales numbers or reword (and cite) to make it clear that Interscope considered it a failure.
  • 5. Stable
    • OK
  • 6. Illustrated, if possible, by images
    • A picture of the stage set-up from the tour would be helpful – have you searched Flickr?
The most I can find is a ticket stub here. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you've addressed these issues or if you'd like to discuss further. Nice job so far. —Zeagler (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So...are we ready to go? Tezkag72 (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]