# Talk:Cryptooology

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cryptooology/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Olivaw-Daneel (talk · contribs) 08:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

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

 @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)
@Olivaw-Daneel: I can take a look at this. Give me a day or so. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@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)
@Famous Hobo: Great, thanks for stepping in. Happy to promote. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 10:09, 12 February 2022 (UTC)