"The EP consists of jazz cover versions sung by Gaga of Christmas classics like "Orange Colored Sky and "White Christmas", the later included an extra verse introduced by Gaga. Other songs present were acoustic versions of "You and I" and "The Edge of Glory", both from the singer's second studio album, Born This Way (2011)." Firstly, is "Orange Colored Sky" really a Christmas classic? Secondly, these are all of the songs on the EP. You shouldn't imply that there are others. You mean latter, not later, and the sentence structure is very difficult to follow.
These are all of the songs, well I do not think the sentence implies to the contrary does it? Were did you get the impression of a fifth track?
Yes, it does imply to the contrary. "Christmas classics like ... other songs present were"; this implies that there were other "Christmas classics", and leaves open the possibility that there were other non-Christmas classics.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"She describes a white
snowman, to whom she is telling that
Santa Claus is on his way to meet him. In the end she finished by saying "Okay, so I suppose it's not very white outside yet."" Is this from the verse or the interview? The writing isn't great.
This has been rephrased, although I'm open to any suggestion from you.
"On November 23, 2011, it was announced that both songs were included on a digital EP titled A Very Gaga Holiday" This is a slightly ridiculous claim as the EP had already been released at that point.
Could we have something in the article body about the non-US release?
What do you mean? Just iTunes links from other markets?
No, I want you to say somewhere in the article that it was released outside the US and when. At the moment, you only mention the US release.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
When was this actually recorded? Are the songs just recordings from the TV special?
The special as well as the digital recordings show that it was from the special a the Convent of the Sacred Heart. Do you think that since its a live recording it is not feasible to add a studio?
Beware of overlinking. Verse, snowman, instrumentation, piano, trumpet and probably others should be stripped away.
" and features instrumentation from a piano and a trumpet, which is played halfway through the song. From time to time, Gaga shouted the word "America" while singing the song" Tense switch
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the blockquote. Links within quotes should be avoided, and from the context, it's clear that when the reviewer says "Howard Stern", they don't mean the person, they are referring to a show
I have rephrased it to passive voice and removed the bit about Howard Stern, seems
WP:UNDUE.
"for the fans only" Gaga's fans?
"saying that although with similar themes, Bush's endeavor appeared stronger." Clumsy
"for the issue dated December 3, 2011" Issue of what? That may work with the Billboard charts, but not with others
What makes you think that 411 Mania and Evigshed Magazine are notable?
What makes you think to the contrary? I checked
WP:RSN and
didnot find any discussion that would have confirmed me its unreliability.
We don't assume reliability until someone proves otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to explain why the sources are reliable.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The first is just for content that would not have fitted in the article, the second is a link to the performance of one of the songs from the EP. One of the reasons for adding this licensed link is to avoid adding any
non-free sound sample of the recordings.
I'm not sure the "Covers EPs" category is warranted.
Why? The EP surely contains of covers, albeit not all of them but it is present anyways.
The EP contains covers, yes, but that's not the same thing as being a covers EP. 2/4 are covers. Unless you have a source calling it a covers EP, I'd advise removing the category.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The writing seems to be below the bar for GAC purposes, and it's unclear where the EP was actually recorded. It's certainly not a bad article, but a bit more work is needed, I feel.
J Milburn (
talk)
14:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the ambiguity. I'm taking a second look through now.
"Some reviewers complimented" Some did, or one did? Especially as the reviewer is actually notable, no harm in mentioning them explicitly...
I think the batch of reviewers who received the EP positively. Here I have a question, instead of naming the reviewers why not jsut the publications? Like "Reviewers from Allmusic, Billboard and Rolling Stone complimented...... " —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"Gaga covered "Orange Colored Sky" during a surprise appearance at The Oak Room in New York City on September 29, 2010, and again on January 5, 2011" Both at the same place, both surprises? If so, you don't need to change anything; if not, clarification is needed
"In the United States, the EP debuted at number 52 on the Billboard 200 on the magazine's the issue dated December 10, 2011." This doesn't make sense
Actually Billboard uses a future date when it releases its charts on its website or the magazine. For eg, if new charts are revealed on March 13, 2014, the magazine will list it with an issue date of March 22, 2014. Hence how do you want the date to be represented? —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"The same week, the special also had an impact on Gaga's second studio album, Born This Way, which moved up the Billboard 200 chart from 72–21, with sales of 47,000 copies (up 416% from previous week)." Does the source say that the it was due to the special?
"Gaga's version of "White Christmas" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 87, for the issue dated December 3, 2011.[19] The same version also entered the Belgium (Flanders) Singles Chart at number 86, for the issue dated December 24, 2011," Issue of what? I said this first time around
Ok, I'm afraid I'm still seeing problems, which really shouldn't be happening at this stage of the review.
"It was made available for purchase on November 22, 2011, exclusively on the iTunes Store in the US" From the lead. "It was released in
the United States to the iTunes Store and Amazon" From the article body. Which was it?
Both, this is clarified now.
Similarly, you say "to promote the ABC special A Very Gaga Thanksgiving" in the lead, but this isn't made explicit elsewhere, and so it's unclear how this is sourced
Promote was a wrong usage I can see, I have clarified that it is the performances.
"Some reviewers complimented the acoustic interpretations of the songs and listed "White Christmas" and "Orange Colored Sky" as highlights" Still, you're saying "some reviewers" to refer to one particular reviewer. If you're saying "some reviewers", make sure what you are saying is attributable to two or more reviewers.
Does it read better now?
Information about the recording belongs in the recording section, not the composition section. Also, did she actually perform the acoustic versions on the show? You don't mention it?
There is no separate recording section as you can see. I have moved this to where it originally was.
I still feel that you need to remove the "issue"s from the chart information
If I remove the word issue, the sentence would read as "The song peaked at date XXXXXXX", which would be incorrect as the actual date is not equal to the date issued by the publisher on which the chart is released. I explained it to you above also. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]06:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, I've made a few final changes to the article, and I'm happy that this is now ready for GA status. Thanks for sticking with it!
J Milburn (
talk)
12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"The EP consists of jazz cover versions sung by Gaga of Christmas classics like "Orange Colored Sky and "White Christmas", the later included an extra verse introduced by Gaga. Other songs present were acoustic versions of "You and I" and "The Edge of Glory", both from the singer's second studio album, Born This Way (2011)." Firstly, is "Orange Colored Sky" really a Christmas classic? Secondly, these are all of the songs on the EP. You shouldn't imply that there are others. You mean latter, not later, and the sentence structure is very difficult to follow.
These are all of the songs, well I do not think the sentence implies to the contrary does it? Were did you get the impression of a fifth track?
Yes, it does imply to the contrary. "Christmas classics like ... other songs present were"; this implies that there were other "Christmas classics", and leaves open the possibility that there were other non-Christmas classics.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"She describes a white
snowman, to whom she is telling that
Santa Claus is on his way to meet him. In the end she finished by saying "Okay, so I suppose it's not very white outside yet."" Is this from the verse or the interview? The writing isn't great.
This has been rephrased, although I'm open to any suggestion from you.
"On November 23, 2011, it was announced that both songs were included on a digital EP titled A Very Gaga Holiday" This is a slightly ridiculous claim as the EP had already been released at that point.
Could we have something in the article body about the non-US release?
What do you mean? Just iTunes links from other markets?
No, I want you to say somewhere in the article that it was released outside the US and when. At the moment, you only mention the US release.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
When was this actually recorded? Are the songs just recordings from the TV special?
The special as well as the digital recordings show that it was from the special a the Convent of the Sacred Heart. Do you think that since its a live recording it is not feasible to add a studio?
Beware of overlinking. Verse, snowman, instrumentation, piano, trumpet and probably others should be stripped away.
" and features instrumentation from a piano and a trumpet, which is played halfway through the song. From time to time, Gaga shouted the word "America" while singing the song" Tense switch
I'm not sure I'm a fan of the blockquote. Links within quotes should be avoided, and from the context, it's clear that when the reviewer says "Howard Stern", they don't mean the person, they are referring to a show
I have rephrased it to passive voice and removed the bit about Howard Stern, seems
WP:UNDUE.
"for the fans only" Gaga's fans?
"saying that although with similar themes, Bush's endeavor appeared stronger." Clumsy
"for the issue dated December 3, 2011" Issue of what? That may work with the Billboard charts, but not with others
What makes you think that 411 Mania and Evigshed Magazine are notable?
What makes you think to the contrary? I checked
WP:RSN and
didnot find any discussion that would have confirmed me its unreliability.
We don't assume reliability until someone proves otherwise. The burden of proof is on you to explain why the sources are reliable.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The first is just for content that would not have fitted in the article, the second is a link to the performance of one of the songs from the EP. One of the reasons for adding this licensed link is to avoid adding any
non-free sound sample of the recordings.
I'm not sure the "Covers EPs" category is warranted.
Why? The EP surely contains of covers, albeit not all of them but it is present anyways.
The EP contains covers, yes, but that's not the same thing as being a covers EP. 2/4 are covers. Unless you have a source calling it a covers EP, I'd advise removing the category.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
The writing seems to be below the bar for GAC purposes, and it's unclear where the EP was actually recorded. It's certainly not a bad article, but a bit more work is needed, I feel.
J Milburn (
talk)
14:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Sorry for the ambiguity. I'm taking a second look through now.
"Some reviewers complimented" Some did, or one did? Especially as the reviewer is actually notable, no harm in mentioning them explicitly...
I think the batch of reviewers who received the EP positively. Here I have a question, instead of naming the reviewers why not jsut the publications? Like "Reviewers from Allmusic, Billboard and Rolling Stone complimented...... " —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"Gaga covered "Orange Colored Sky" during a surprise appearance at The Oak Room in New York City on September 29, 2010, and again on January 5, 2011" Both at the same place, both surprises? If so, you don't need to change anything; if not, clarification is needed
"In the United States, the EP debuted at number 52 on the Billboard 200 on the magazine's the issue dated December 10, 2011." This doesn't make sense
Actually Billboard uses a future date when it releases its charts on its website or the magazine. For eg, if new charts are revealed on March 13, 2014, the magazine will list it with an issue date of March 22, 2014. Hence how do you want the date to be represented? —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]07:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)reply
"The same week, the special also had an impact on Gaga's second studio album, Born This Way, which moved up the Billboard 200 chart from 72–21, with sales of 47,000 copies (up 416% from previous week)." Does the source say that the it was due to the special?
"Gaga's version of "White Christmas" entered the UK Singles Chart at number 87, for the issue dated December 3, 2011.[19] The same version also entered the Belgium (Flanders) Singles Chart at number 86, for the issue dated December 24, 2011," Issue of what? I said this first time around
Ok, I'm afraid I'm still seeing problems, which really shouldn't be happening at this stage of the review.
"It was made available for purchase on November 22, 2011, exclusively on the iTunes Store in the US" From the lead. "It was released in
the United States to the iTunes Store and Amazon" From the article body. Which was it?
Both, this is clarified now.
Similarly, you say "to promote the ABC special A Very Gaga Thanksgiving" in the lead, but this isn't made explicit elsewhere, and so it's unclear how this is sourced
Promote was a wrong usage I can see, I have clarified that it is the performances.
"Some reviewers complimented the acoustic interpretations of the songs and listed "White Christmas" and "Orange Colored Sky" as highlights" Still, you're saying "some reviewers" to refer to one particular reviewer. If you're saying "some reviewers", make sure what you are saying is attributable to two or more reviewers.
Does it read better now?
Information about the recording belongs in the recording section, not the composition section. Also, did she actually perform the acoustic versions on the show? You don't mention it?
There is no separate recording section as you can see. I have moved this to where it originally was.
I still feel that you need to remove the "issue"s from the chart information
If I remove the word issue, the sentence would read as "The song peaked at date XXXXXXX", which would be incorrect as the actual date is not equal to the date issued by the publisher on which the chart is released. I explained it to you above also. —
Indian:BIO · [
ChitChat ]06:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Ok, I've made a few final changes to the article, and I'm happy that this is now ready for GA status. Thanks for sticking with it!
J Milburn (
talk)
12:18, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply