# Talk:Mata (album)

Why do we need to note in the lead that the title is shown in capitals?  There are literally thousands of albums where the title is shown in capitals on the cover (eg Born in the U.S.A., The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan, Please Please Me, etc etc) but I can't see any reason why we need to specify this in the article's lead....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

We don't and shouldn't, but unfortunately so many editors have become accustomed to seeing this in the leads of articles after it became commonplace on 2010s pop song articles (especially in the wake of Ariana Grande's all-lowercase aesthetic and pop singers who copied that). To be honest, it's trivial and never consistent in sources talking about an album or song. Unless it's a title with symbols intended to mean something that may not be immediately obvious, I find stylisation notes disrupt the flow of prose at the start and very unnecessary. In this case I fully believe readers can tell Mata and MATA are the same thing. Ss112 09:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Just happened to pass by about a month later, but I thought I'd toss an opinion in. I think writing it out in full for the lead is unnecessary for all the reasons listed above, but I think a separate footnote would help in cases like this. It's much less disruptive in my opinion. As for Chris' examples, I see where you're coming from and the argument does make sense. But I think it's up to the artists for how their music is rendered on digital platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, etc., right? That's usually the standard I like to go by. If they wrote it a certain way - all caps, all lower, etc. - that was probably intentional and how they want the music recognized (whether that actually happens in other sources is a varying story). Of course, any other substantial use of special stylization by sources works too. Not saying we should literally set it the way it's written for every article, but like I said at the beginning, a small footnote denoting the casing or other stylization is the route I'd take and the one I wish more people would. dannymusiceditor  oops  15:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: that's probably a valid point about digital services, I didn't think of that as I never use them.  In other news, I live in a cave :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mata (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ippantekina (talk · contribs) 08:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

 
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a. (prose, spelling, and grammar): 

b. (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a. (reference section): 

b. (citations to reliable sources): 

c. (OR): 

d. (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a. (major aspects): 

b. (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a. (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): 

b. (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/fail: 

(Criteria marked  are unassessed)
The article is close to promotion but I have one comment: why is Slant not included in the "Critical reception" prose? Also I prefer it to be written out as Slant Magazine instead of Slant to avoid the redirect. That's all I have :) Ippantekina (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

@Ippantekina: - done! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
That was easy :) Passing. Ippantekina (talk) 17:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)