# Talk:Black Eye (album)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Black Eye (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sparklism (talk · contribs) 08:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Nicely presented article - I'll take this on. It might take me a few days to carry out a detailed review, but here's a couple of easy pointers from my first read through:

You could add the two singles to the infobox using the {{Singles}} template.
Added the two singles. Note that the album has at least five singles as far as I know, but these two are the most notable ones. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Out of interest, why don't you add all five? — sparklism  hey! 14:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Because it is not very clear how many singles were released. According to Discogs, more than five singles were released. But we cannot use that as a source, so that's why I originally did not add the singles to the infobox. In any case, I don't think it is really an issue. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The article states in both the lead and the body that those two singles reached the UK Albums Chart, when in reality I think it should be the UK Singles Chart.
Good catch. Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'll post more detail in the coming days...good luck! :) — sparklism  hey! 08:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in reviewing this article; again, really appreciated. I have no hurry to get this to GA status, so take your time. I know we have another life outside this site :) --Niwi3 (talk) 11:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks :)  — sparklism  hey! 15:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


### Images
I'm no expert on image licensing, but if you look at the commons page for the CBGB image, there are a couple of big pink notices that worry me - is this image usable for a Good Article?
It should be fine, as it is under the GNU Free Documentation License and used in some featured articles such as Punk rock and Marquee Moon. If you want, I can ask Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums to see if there is any issue with it. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that's not a bad idea. There must be thousands of experts for this kind of thing - you could maybe try the GA help page? Thanks. — sparklism  hey! 08:13, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I opened a discussion about it here. Let's see if there are experts who can clarify the issue. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Since there's been no response there, I've posted a similar question at WP:IMAGEHELP - let's hope there's a response to one of these soon! — sparklism  hey! 06:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I also added a note to the old question saying that the question has already been answered at WP:IMAGEHELP. --Niwi3 (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks. — sparklism  hey! 15:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


### Lead
The meaning of "the producer did not arrange anything to give the album a rough live sound approach" is not clear to me. How about something along the lines of "the music was not arranged by the producer in order to achieve a rough, live sound"? I see this is repeated further down in the article body, too.
Reworded. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"The record contains loud punk songs which deal with sexual and abuse topics" → "The record contains loud punk songs with themes of sex and abuse"? (or is it "sexual abuse"?)
Both. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
This might be lost in translation somewhere, but what is a "major-marked tour"? (I've never heard that expression myself, and I speak the Queen's English, but it might just be me) - this also appears in the 'Promotion and release' section later on
Replaced with "major tour". I think the author of the source probably means "major marketed tour"? --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The source says "major market tour", which I think means something different. Anyway, you've changed it for the better. — sparklism  hey! 08:02, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"but some criticized the lyrics for their vague observations about obvious truths." - I know what this means but it somehow doesn't seem clear enough for the lead. Maybe simplify this a little, like "but some criticized the vagueness of the lyrics"? (Now that I've written that, I'm not sure it's any good, but I'd be interested to hear what you think.)
The simpler, the better. I like it. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, I think "criticised" is more usual in British English, strictly speaking.
True. Changed. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


### Background and recording
I can see why you've put the first sentence in this section, but I don't think it's necessary. How about just starting with "Fluffy formed in London in late 1994..."?
I like starting each section with the name of the article to stay focused on the topic. In my opinion, if the article started with "Fluffy formed in London in late 1994..." then the article would lose a bit of focus since it would seem to me that it would be talking about the band instead of the album. What do you think? Thanks --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. In this case though, since it was a debut album, the 'background' section is perfectly logical to talk about the formation of the band. — sparklism  hey! 08:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
"...Geffen A&R executive Tom Zutaut, who is best known for signing Guns N' Roses." The tense for this feels wrong ("...who is...") - is it simpler just to say "...Geffen A&R executive Tom Zutaut, best known for signing Guns N' Roses" or even "...A&R executive Tom Zutaut, who had previously signed Guns N' Roses to Geffen."?
I agree. Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
"The drums Adams used during the recording process, which were modelled after a Ringo Starr reissue model, were really basic. That, along with the fact the band played in a stone room..." 'really basic' is too informal for a GA. I'd rewrite this along the lines of "The drums were recorded in a stone room using a basic kit that was modelled after a Ringo Starr reissue model, which resulted in a slightly distorted sound..."
Much better. Thanks for the suggestion --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


### Promotion and release
"Black Eye is the first full-length released by The Enclave. To promote the launch of the album, the record label, who has been working with the band since" I think there's two instances there of the tense being mixed.
Fixed --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


### Critical reception
You'll see I made some copy edits to this already
They are perfectly fine. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I've spotted something else here. In the part where you are talking about the Select critic's thoughts, you mention that he "compared some songs favourably to The Stooges and early-Siouxsie and the Banshees" but then go on to say "...intent on falling short of PJ's black-bordered presence..." and talk about the "Yeovil delta-blues". I assume this is a reference to PJ Harvey (who is mentioned further up the article), but in this particular section it's not clear to the reader that "PJ" actually means "PJ Harvey" - could this be re-done, either by amending the prose leading up to the quote to include a mention of PJH, or simply by doing "...intent on falling short of PJ [Harvey]'s black-bordered presence..."?  — sparklism  hey! 08:10, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, it might not be clear for readers who are not familiar with this topic. Fixed. --Niwi3 (talk) 19:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


### Track listing
Should "All music composed by Fluffy" really be "All songs written and composed by Fluffy"?
Yes, that's better. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Well I didn't know that that was how to do it, so I've learned something else :) — sparklism  hey! 08:14, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


### Summary
Looks like there's not that much to do to the main article, which is great - I might add more here after a re-read. I'm concerned by that image, though. Good luck! — sparklism  hey! 15:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I think I have addressed all the issues. Please let me know if there is anything else that needs to be fixed. Thank you for suggestions. --Niwi3 (talk) 22:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
You'll see I've added another point to address above. Article looking good so far though :) — sparklism  hey! 08:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that's everything taken care of. Happy to pass this as a Good Article - well done! — sparklism  hey! 15:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)