# Talk:Pitfalls

Please stop. Content disputes need to be resolved here. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Ss112: There is no reason to repeat "Albums" every time you add another chart or use a line break to make a column narrower, except to copy what other articles have done and make it look like what you want it to, which is an accusation that has been thrown at me when I had good faith reasons for my edits. Cognissonance (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't need to be pinged. And oh, okay. So your reasons are "good faith", not you wanting to control every aspect of the article, but mine aren't good faith. Gotcha. Yes, it must be my desire to make the article worse. I don't see a good reason why this article should differ from thousands of other album articles because one editor doesn't want it that way. It's not just how I want it to look. It's how thousands of other editors who've added chart wikitables with the same formatting want it to look. Including Lk95, who added the chart table to this article in the first place. Ss112 00:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's called copyediting, representing the same information ("[country] Albums") but with less words ([country]). Using a line break is your preference, but we should let the columns expand according to their titles, like the Content overview does with sections. Cognissonance (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
It's not my preference—as I just said, it's used on thousands of articles and I didn't invent the style. Also, your edit summary here is misleading. By saying "sourced info", you act like I didn't source the information I added in my prior edits. There was nothing I added in my edits that wasn't sourced, and if that's not what you intended it to mean then it certainly reads that way. Not being to your liking is not the same thing as being unsourced. I'd revert your latest two edits, but it's clear you'll edit war and complain until you get your way. If you intend to nominate this for GA status, I will be making a comment that the charts section is poorly formatted and non-standard and will not support it being passed until it is brought into line with the standard of other articles—not subject to the whims of one editor who believes their pet project should differ from all other articles. Ss112 02:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
You're hysterical. "sourced info" means that I added info from a source that was already there. Cognissonance (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
And you're delusional, because that makes no damn sense. I don't know why anybody would need to say "sourced info" when it's expected it would be sourced. Who specifies that unless they're adding a source to unsourced info? But sure, whatever you say. I'll be looking out for the impending GAN and be sure to comment at it. Ss112 03:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Pitfalls/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Lordtobi (talk · contribs) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


### Immediate failures
It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria Y
It contains copyright violations Y (Earwig's says copyvio has a probability of 58.8% because Google Play is using the lede from your article. )
It has, or needs, cleanup banners that are unquestionably still valid Y
It is not stable due to edit warring on the page Y


### Prose notes
#### Lead
They recruited a cellist, violinist, and classical choir for the production. – Does 'they' in this case refer to the group or the recording studio?
Most of the songs were written and composed by vocalist Einar Solberg. – Given the preceding sentence, it is not immediately clear that this is the group's vocalist, not any vocalist they hired.
Pitfalls charted higher than Malina (2017) – Consider mentioning that Malina was the previous album by Leprous.


#### Production
... at Ghostward Studios in Stockholm, Sweden with ... – Add a trailing comma after 'Sweden'.
Thirteen were ultimately made, but only nine could be completed due to time constraints. – I suppose this should say "Thirteen songs". I would also clarify how far 'made' goes here, i.e. they began recording but could not do all recordings in time.
I like to avoid repetition. Both "recorded" and "songs" appear closely behind this sentence. "made" was the best word to describe the information without repetition. Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, repetition should be avoided, but keep WP:ELEVAR in mind. "Thirteen" here could refer to any noun in the prior sentence; out of the given context, I initially assumed the "halves of the songs" were the ones they made. As for the word "made", I commonly associate it with completion. "planned" might be a suitable alternative. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
He saw Pitfalls as the largest production and musical departure yet ... – Clarify here that it was the largest production for Leprous, not overall.
"I Lose Hope" was frowned upon in its infancy, but reached new potential in studio ... – This should probably say "in the studio".
"in studio" rings correct, like "in hospital". Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Interesting. Grammarly marks this as incorrect and I cannot seem to find any online resources on the matter (even the source you cite uses both versions). But alas, this is not a GAN obstacle. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
... at which point drummer Baard Kolstad and Børven applied – Consider swapping the names for a better flow.
A classical choir in Belgrade, Serbia was booked} – A trailing comma here also.


#### Promotion
... as a limited mediabook CD with two bonus tracks, jewelcase CD, 2LP vinyl record ... – I would clarify both "CD" and "2LP" here.
Not sure how to clarify 2LP. LP really just means vinyl record, so there's two of them, contrary to 1LP. Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
A link to LP record might be handy. LPs are vinyls of a specific size and tend to differ from EPs and singles. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Inside Out, accompanied by a source, should also be mentioned here.
Mentioned Inside Out, but no need to add source. Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, in this case there already were sources for this . Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


#### Reception
In the reviews table, I would use the more accurate "8.7" score from Blezt, rather than the star-ratings system.
Prog, PopMatters, Sputnikmusic, Ultimate Guitar, and drummer Mike Portnoy included ... – If Portnoy is mentioned to be a drummer, the other four entities should be classified as magazines to avoid ambiguity.
"Observe the Train" was viewed as a calming interval ... – Make sure that the reader is still aware that this is Araneda's opinion.


#### Track listing
The commented-out refs (which assume are used to verify the track lengths) are probably not a good choice here. Considering adding them to the respective total lengths.
The table for the bonus tracks shows the total length of the entire album rather than only the sum of the two songs. Is this intentional/common practice?
I wondered that myself, but found that a featured article had done it that way. Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
If it works there, it'll also work here. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


#### Personnel
Ogendal is not mentioned before this point. I would add an in-line source for them as was done for other not-previously-noted entries. The commented-out ref is thereby redundant.


#### Charts
Same note as in the lead; mention briefly that Malina was their previous album to establish context.
Swap the two sources at the end of the sentence to obtain numerical order.


### Notes/references
For accessibility, I would add |trans-title= params for non-English sources.
Used Google Translate. Adjust if you see something wrong with the German translations. Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Google Translate is fine since we're only dealing with accessibility. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
For sources hosted on YouTube, I would mention YouTube as the website.


### GA criteria
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 fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
@Cognissonance: Incoming, my first GA review, so I hope I covered everything. Overall, the article is well-written and comprehensive, pretty much meeting all GA standards. I pointed out a few minor issues above. Once fixed, I'll be happy to promote the article to GA status. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 10:08, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: I did almost everything and left some notes above. Cognissonance (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I left additional replies in-line. Lordtobi (✉) 18:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lordtobi: Finished with the rest. Really appreciate the review, which was perfectly done. You can ask for my help anytime. Cognissonance (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
In that case, I think we're done here. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 19:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


### Page views for Hazard
Given that Pitfalls means Hazards, see Pitfall vs Pitfalls vs Hazard In ictu oculi (talk) 12:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

 Reply - So? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2020 (UTC)