Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the
good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
It's a shame to see this review has been abandoned again and again - so although I'll freely admit that hip-hop isn't my area of expertise, I think I've done enough album GA reviews to know what's required
Lead
Is it worth adding an English translation of the title (eg: "Orelsan and Gringe are the Wet Bandits")
The first two paragraphs could be merged.
The lead could be expanded a little to give some of the background information on the album as mentioned in the body
"Orelsan's two studio albums Perdu d'avance and Le chant des sirènes were met with huge success" - I think "huge" is too strong a word (see
WP:WEASEL); maybe "met with commercial and critical success" would be better?
"the latter won him the Urban Music Album of the Year award at the 2012 Victoires de la Musique" - per
WP:REFBLOAT, I don't think you need five citations to this relatively straightforward fact
The remainder of the paragraph is unsourced. For a claim like "Orelsan himself garnering several more accolades and nominations in the process" - this is particularly problematic.
Composition
"Orelsan kept his feet on the ground" - per
WP:IDIOM this will need to be reworded, otherwise it won't make sense for readers worldwide
The inline quotation is a bit long - I think it's probably better to just paraphrase it in your own words, using smaller quotations for the real "meat" of the claim
What makes LesInrocks.com a reliable source?
Singles
This section is too short. I would suggest renaming this "Release", add in the album's release date, any direct promotional activity around it, and then include the information about "Bloqué"
Reception
What makes Republ33k.fr a reliable source?
I think the quotation from Higher Magazine is a bit too long and should be cut down, as it could be conceived to be a
copyright violation.
Personnel
You shouldn't cite from
discogs.com, it's not considered a
reliable source as anyone can add or update information on it. I was going to say "get the original CD and cite that", except these days I'm not sure all albums are still released on CD. In any case, a more authoritative source for the credits is required. I have seen a handful of cases of what appears to be subtle vandalism by adding fictitious credits to albums or band personnel, so it really is important the information can be verifiable.
Summary
I've gone through the article, and the problem I have at the moment is it isn't really long - just under 5K of prose, and once the overlong quotations are trimmed down, the article will be even shorter. That leaves it at risk of being merged with the band's parent article. By contrast, Random Access Memories, which I would consider a reasonably close enough GA in terms of style and topic, is seven times as long. Admittedly, that album has had more commercial success, but not that much commercial success?
I'm tempted to close the review as "not listed", but that wouldn't be particularly nice or fair given you've had the review kicked back or abandoned so many times, but I don't want to put it "on hold" yet as that implies its close to passing GA, and I'm not sure it is. I'll grab a second opinion about whether to proceed before making a final decision, but I would advise you to expand the "Background" and "Composition" sections.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I was asked to provide a second opinion. Aside from merging, I agree with all of Ritchie's points and suggest failure. There isn't anything on promotion or release on the album, and really short sections/subsections are discouraged per MOS:LAYOUT. Swiss and Belgian chartings should also be mentioned in prose for "commercial performance", though I would remove the subheadings for that and "critical reception". Another problem is how there is nothing on opening sales.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 23:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I tend to restrict chart positions in prose to the native country, any large markets and anywhere where commercial performance was significantly greater at home. Anyway, I have closed the review.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Orelsan et Gringe sont les Casseurs Flowters was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the
good article criteria at the time (January 2, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it,
please do; it may then be
renominated.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the
project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
It's a shame to see this review has been abandoned again and again - so although I'll freely admit that hip-hop isn't my area of expertise, I think I've done enough album GA reviews to know what's required
Lead
Is it worth adding an English translation of the title (eg: "Orelsan and Gringe are the Wet Bandits")
The first two paragraphs could be merged.
The lead could be expanded a little to give some of the background information on the album as mentioned in the body
"Orelsan's two studio albums Perdu d'avance and Le chant des sirènes were met with huge success" - I think "huge" is too strong a word (see
WP:WEASEL); maybe "met with commercial and critical success" would be better?
"the latter won him the Urban Music Album of the Year award at the 2012 Victoires de la Musique" - per
WP:REFBLOAT, I don't think you need five citations to this relatively straightforward fact
The remainder of the paragraph is unsourced. For a claim like "Orelsan himself garnering several more accolades and nominations in the process" - this is particularly problematic.
Composition
"Orelsan kept his feet on the ground" - per
WP:IDIOM this will need to be reworded, otherwise it won't make sense for readers worldwide
The inline quotation is a bit long - I think it's probably better to just paraphrase it in your own words, using smaller quotations for the real "meat" of the claim
What makes LesInrocks.com a reliable source?
Singles
This section is too short. I would suggest renaming this "Release", add in the album's release date, any direct promotional activity around it, and then include the information about "Bloqué"
Reception
What makes Republ33k.fr a reliable source?
I think the quotation from Higher Magazine is a bit too long and should be cut down, as it could be conceived to be a
copyright violation.
Personnel
You shouldn't cite from
discogs.com, it's not considered a
reliable source as anyone can add or update information on it. I was going to say "get the original CD and cite that", except these days I'm not sure all albums are still released on CD. In any case, a more authoritative source for the credits is required. I have seen a handful of cases of what appears to be subtle vandalism by adding fictitious credits to albums or band personnel, so it really is important the information can be verifiable.
Summary
I've gone through the article, and the problem I have at the moment is it isn't really long - just under 5K of prose, and once the overlong quotations are trimmed down, the article will be even shorter. That leaves it at risk of being merged with the band's parent article. By contrast, Random Access Memories, which I would consider a reasonably close enough GA in terms of style and topic, is seven times as long. Admittedly, that album has had more commercial success, but not that much commercial success?
I'm tempted to close the review as "not listed", but that wouldn't be particularly nice or fair given you've had the review kicked back or abandoned so many times, but I don't want to put it "on hold" yet as that implies its close to passing GA, and I'm not sure it is. I'll grab a second opinion about whether to proceed before making a final decision, but I would advise you to expand the "Background" and "Composition" sections.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 20:21, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
I was asked to provide a second opinion. Aside from merging, I agree with all of Ritchie's points and suggest failure. There isn't anything on promotion or release on the album, and really short sections/subsections are discouraged per MOS:LAYOUT. Swiss and Belgian chartings should also be mentioned in prose for "commercial performance", though I would remove the subheadings for that and "critical reception". Another problem is how there is nothing on opening sales.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 23:43, 1 January 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks. I tend to restrict chart positions in prose to the native country, any large markets and anywhere where commercial performance was significantly greater at home. Anyway, I have closed the review.
Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 09:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)reply