Talk:Drowned World/Substitute for Love/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Aoba47 (talk · contribs) 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Grabbing this for a review. Aoba47 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Please provide an ALT description for the infobox image.
I do believe you need “the” in the phrase “received the credits due to”
I do not think the “Musically” transition in the lead’s first paragraph is necessary.
I am not sure what you mean by “fused elements”. You could just eliminate this phrasing to say “which includes…”. The phrasing “fused elements” is not found in the body of the article either.
Please WikiLink the first reference to “Sky Fits Heaven” in the lead and for the first mention in the body of the article. Also, I raise this point later in the review, but is the information about the charting for “Sky Fits Heaven” necessary for the article about this song, especially since a separate article for that song has been created?
This is probably a stupid question, but can something “receive” controversy? I know that something can “receive” publicity if something is controversial, but I am not sure about the wording in the lead’s third paragraph. Let me know what you think, but maybe "attract" would be a better word as I have heard the phrase attracted controversy more often. I could be wrong though.
Should you add the Madonna: Tears of a Clown performance to the lead?
The first sentence of the “Background and release” section sounds a little strange to me. The second half of it starts with a verb “giving birth”, but you do not use a verb for the rest of the list on her interest in religion and Evita so I would recommend inserting a verb for both instances or change the first verb to something else.
Evita in “the Evita soundtrack” should be in italics.
Should you identify Ray of Light as Madonna’s seventh studio album in the first mention to give a larger context for the reader?
I understand the phrase “which started reflecting in the songs composed”, but I think you can word it better as it is a little awkward.
Would “the most anticipated tracks” be better than “the most expected tracks”?
Is the WikiLink in “recorded” in the “Recording and composition” section necessary? Seems a little unnecessary to me so I would remove it.
In the Jimi Hendrix image, the caption should say “those played by…” as you referring to the guitars.
Is there a way to revise the first two paragraphs of the “Critical reception” section in a more organizational approach so it does not appear as a list of critics? A more cohesive narrative would make this section much stronger?
Add a space between GHV2 and (2001).
I would suggest splitting the first paragraph of the “Chart performance” section into a first paragraph about the UK performance and its performance in other European countries. Right now, the paragraph seems rather large and unwieldy.
Should you define Tears of a Clown as a “one-off concert” when she has done the show a second time and it is described as an ongoing show in its Wikipedia page? You could instead specify that it was the Melbourne performance? Also did she perform this in the Miami date and was there any new information/reception for that?
Is the chart for “Sky Fits Heaven” really necessary? I would remove it as it does not directly deal with the song and there is already a page for “Sky Fits Heaven”.

Final comments

Great work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will pass this. Hope you had a wonderful day. Aoba47 (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@IndianBio: Let me know when you have finished making the corrections and/or responding to my comments and I will most likely pass this as a good article. Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: hey I am done with the changes now. Please feel free to review them :) —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response and great with the article! ✓ Pass