# Talk:Travelling Without Moving

This review is transcluded from Talk:Travelling Without Moving/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: ErnestKrause (talk · contribs) 18:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Starting review process, it may take a couple of days if needed. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Lead section
Phrase in lead section: "The album was the band's American breakthrough, where marked the..." This punctuation of a comma does not seem to fit. Wording may look better with some adjustment. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Background
Phrase in Background section "stressful period of recording" may look better as "...while recording". ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Phrase at end of this section "so they could work their own pace" may look better as "so that they could work at their own pace", with particles added. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Composition
Opening sentence "The first song written before Travelling Without Moving conceived..." may look better as "The first song composed for the album was...". ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The songs in this section are normally offset by commas. One comma before the song title followed by one comma after the song title for nearly every song mentioned in this paragraph. This offsets the song titles and makes the text easier to read. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
The phrase "The title track samples..." might look better as "The title track is next on the album and samples...". ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Release
The phrase "Released under Work..." might look better as "Released on the Work record label...". ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
All of the international results might look better in a "Charts" section, either in table format since you already have a Charts section later in this article. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Since you already have the Charts section in the article, then you might think about just removing the charts info from this section. If you have any of the marketing promotion information with reliable cites for the album's release, then it might look good to see it in this section. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Accolades
The phrase looks better with a comma after it: "For their single "Virtual Insanity"". Prepositional phrases, which you seem to like using in this article usually use a comma to offset them from the main part of the sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Missing space before start of FNAC sentence. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Legacy
Legacy sections usually come at the end of the article. It should be moved lower in the Table of Contents. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Controversy
Phrase "from press" to "from the press". ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Phrase "being recreated with" should say 'within' or 'under' or 'above' since the single word "with" is a little ambiguous." ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Phrase "pointed out this concept with the music video" might look better as "pointed out this contradiction in the music video...". ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Your use of square brackets for a period in the quote you use in this section looks unconventional. Maybe better with an elipsis. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
This Controversy section might actually look better in the Reception section, either worked into the text there already, or, as a subsection in the Reception section. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


### Personnel
This section might look better higher up in the article's Table of Contents. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

That should get things started and let me know if any of the above needs clarification. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have most of these addressed. I decided to make controversy into a subsection in release. I didn't remove the info about the charts even though it already has its own tables. I often see the same information as also a prose version. I don't remember where I've learned it or who told me, but it's generally a standard in album articles. The personnel section is higher up in the article. I feel like the  notes subsection in the tracks section gave a bit of confusion. 웃OO 04:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Concluding: That looks like a better version of the article. Optionally, the Personnel section usually appears higher in the Table of Contents than the Legacy section and you might switch their places in the Table of Contents. Also, one image of the personnel somewhere in the article might look nice to go along with the sports car image you already have. Passing article. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)