Talk:Cryptooology/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) 08:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Picking this up. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 08:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Overall thoughts: this is a well-written article; I like the prose and appreciate the background information on the band. A few comments below.

Some neutrality issues with these superlatives in wikivoice: meticulous rehearsal and are in fact painstakingly precise in the lead; meticulously composing in Recording and release. I'd attribute them as opinions (perhaps something as simple as "have been described as" instead of "are in fact", assuming a source uses "painstakingly") and/or use a more neutral descriptor.

Removed or reworded some of the unecessary superlatives

The lead seems a bit short; can it be expanded a little?

Expanded on the lead a little. According to MOS:LEADLENGTH, an article with fewer than 15,000 characters prose should have one to two paragraphs in the lead, and Cryptooology has just under 8,000

Composition: is there a reason "clean" is in quotes? (I'm not really familiar with "clean" amplification; just wanted to check if it's a technical term or a quote from the source.)

I was wondering the same thing. Typically when I see the word clean in reference to music, I think "no distortion" (which in this case is true). However, I can't 100% confirm if that's what the critic is talking about in the reference, so I just got rid of "clean" altogether (the sentence still works).

Carl W. Stalling—who is best known for scoring cartoons like Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies – I think this needs a source.

Added a source

I'd try to paraphrase a couple of the longer quotes in Reception; the one from Levinson seems a bit long.

Cut down on some of the quotes

Please ping when done/if you have any questions. Thanks, Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blz 2049: Pinging since it's been almost a week. I think the article is close to being a GA; just needs a few fixes. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivaw-Daneel: I can take a look at this. Give me a day or so. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olivaw-Daneel: Alright, took a little longer than I was hoping for, but I'll blame life for getting in the way. I've addressed each comment. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Great, thanks for stepping in. Happy to promote. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]