Talk:Costello Music

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Costello Music has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

A request has been made for this article to be copyedited by the League of Copyeditors. The progress of its reviewers is recorded below. The League is always in need of editors with a good grasp of English to review articles. Visit the Project page if you are interested in helping.
Add comments

  • Please look at especially the background and release section - my writing there is terrible. The article is fairly short so there's not too much to go over. Thanks in advance if anyone can be bothered to help with this :) -- Naerii 07:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nom

  • "Critical Reception" should have a lower case r. Y Done
  • There needs to be more negative analysis of the album. Pitchfork Media and the Austin Chronicle gave pretty negative reviews, and the AV Club was pretty wishy-washy on it as well Y Done
  • "Five songs were released as singles... "Flathead" was used in an iPod commercial which led to it being released as a download only single". A single is a single, even if it's just based on downloads. {{whut}}
  • How did the singles do? This is completely glossed over in the text section of the article.
  • Looks like your singles chart is a bit mixed up at the bottom. Y Done
  • Billboard is a magazine, it needs to be italicized whenever it appears in the album.Y Done
  • We need more information about the Q Magazine and People citations other than the page number and issue. It should be cited in a conistant fashion as the others, which includes the names of the reviewers, the title, and the publisher.
  • Don't cite wikipedia in a wikipedia article (citation 8). {{whut}}
  • "critics commented on its British rock traits". "commented" doesn't really tell us anything about what they said. Did they like it or dislike it or disagree amongst themselves? Y Done
  • wikilink September 11, 2006 in the lead and the Release section.Y Done
  • also wikilink iPodY Done
  • Be sure to mention who wrote the song in the tracklistings section. Also, "track listing" is two words.Y Done
  • Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums, all album articles need a personnel section.Y Done
  • Mention when the album was released in the US in the Release section.Y Done
  • "Brit award" should be "BRIT Award"Y Done
  • Image:TheFratellis-CostelloMusic.jpg needs a fair use rationale. See other album articles if you're unfamiliar with them.Y Done
  • There's prbably more information out there about how the band recorded the album. Right now, all that's mentioned is that they were signed and recorded it at Sunset Sound.
  • Although it may seem obvious, there's also probably published works stating how the album got its name. Also explain what artists influenced the album.
  • Indie Rock needs a lower case r in the infobox.Y Done
  • There's probably more specific information about when it was recorded in the album booklet (rather than just "2006"), although maybe not.

Overall, the album is fairly weak on information. The critical reception section needs more revies, the background section needs more information about the recording sessions, and the lyrics & composition section could do more to explain where the sound was influenced from. Also, it is necessary for all copyrighted imaged to have a fair use rationale, so get on that right away. As a result, I'm failing this article as a good article. Teemu08 01:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If you checked citation 8 properly you'd see that it's fine. The singles did pretty crap.. there's nothing much to say. Wikilinking dates for the sake of it is pointless. Dunno what happened to the table, it was fine a few days ago. The critics were neither negative or positive about it's rock roots.. they just pointed it out. I don't have the Q magazine and People references available to me. What's wrong with saying "download only single"?
The rest is fair, though. Kamryn ยท Talk 21:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I have addressed all of the concerns I feel are relevant. CordeliaHenrietta (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of February 17, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Very clear writing.
2. Factually accurate?: Appropriate referencing throughout.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? No edits since I went through and corrected some minor mechanical errors.
6. Images?: Pass

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. Kakofonous (talk) 00:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)