# Talk:Tip (album)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tip (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 03:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

This will be easy to review (at least, what's here). I have coverage concerns, but it seems an earnest effort has been submitted so I will respond to it.

@DannyMusicEditor: Thank you for reviewing this GA submission, my first GA nomination. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)


### Checklist
Here we go: 
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
Very readable. A little cut and dry in some places, could recommend improvement, but nothing is obstructive.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 
Almost. There are some things not included that I'd like to see added to the lead.
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 

B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 
Almost. The genre of this album is not cited nor even mentioned outside the infobox.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 
Albums are expected to have a section on its recording process; I see this is absent entirely. But I'll be following up on this in a little bit, as I will with everything else here.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 
I'm unsure whether some of these meet MOS:PERTINENCE.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
First pass-over complete. I will provide details and come to a more decisive way to proceed soon.


### Prose and layout
Looks pretty solid. There are only a few exceptions. dannymusiceditor  oops  06:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

"While responses to Tip were initially muted, ..." this sentence goes on forever. Pump the brakes after "Wind-up Records" and make a new sentence about the band's future.
Personally, I wouldn't recommend using subheadings in the background section; I feel like a lot of others would not say there is enough content to justify separating them that way, but I'm not going to hold it over your head. Ultimately your call.
"It just happened." can be removed from James Black's quote from Chart Attack. It doesn't really add to the understanding of the situation, so less quoting is better.
When talking about the album's initial release, you cannot say that they were "unceremoniously" dropped. This is editorializing and a violation of the style manual. A replacement word is not needed and cutting it will be sufficient.
I get we could just click on the link or hover over it to find out, but what is Roswell? Perhaps say "the American television program Roswell".


### Sourcing
Again, great. Two concerns. dannymusiceditor  oops  06:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I first asked why "Top 20" was quoted, but it's due to the nature of the reference you used. Do you think you could use the actual chart "Quicksand" placed on as a source instead?
The genres used in the infobox on this album aren't sourced anywhere. I didn't find anything attributing them to the record already existing in the article somewhere.


### Images
All are fairly licensed as far as I can tell, and the fair use for albums is obviously acceptable in enwiki. However, I have concerns with two images. dannymusiceditor  oops  06:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Per MOS:PERTINENCE: "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative." Also, per MOS:DECOR: "They should provide additional useful information on the article subject, serve as visual cues that aid the reader's comprehension, or improve navigation." While relevant, I don't see how the icons for Mercury Records and KRXQ are actually significant here. These two images serve neither of the latter two purposes of images in a Wikipedia article, and the images themselves do not serve the first purpose, although their captions may give them minimal aid in that regard. I strongly recommend removing these two images; it clutters an already short article and doesn't grant much of a helpful impact by being here. The understanding of the article will be about the same with them gone.


### Coverage (second opinion)
My biggest concern. There is a whole section missing on an otherwise strong effort. dannymusiceditor  oops  06:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Good articles for albums are generally expected to have a section on the making of the album. When and how it was recorded, with who, all those details. Almost all of that is missing from this article. However, I realize this may be difficult to determine if that information is out there. This is the early breakthrough of a Canadian modern rock staple of the 2000s, and they were just getting started; while they later became known as a household name, they were far from that point at the time of this album's release. Thus, it is possible it may not actually be out there. But I've never run across a situation like this before. I will be filing a request for a second opinion for this particular case because I do not know if it can be passed without this information. Should this album have a recording section?
@DannyMusicEditor: Thank you for reviewing this nomination and detailing issues and other concerns with this article. I hope this edit fixes the issues detailed above. CJ-Moki (talk) 08:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
That is a good start to covering recording, but it is too small to be its own section. If an outsider thinks this is sufficient and could recommend a better place to put the information, (scratch that, I didn't see the diff which removed that heading) I would be happy to accept that and then pass the article. dannymusiceditor  oops  19:05, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
After three weeks and no objection, I'm choosing to pass the article. If someone has a problem with the coverage of the article, I'll take the blame for it. I think you've done a great job on an album that's relatively obscure. dannymusiceditor  oops  03:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
@DannyMusicEditor: Thank you for passing this article. I plan to work on the The Greyest of Blue Skies article next. CJ-Moki (talk) 03:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)