Quite a lot of hard work went into this page and it shows. I have two concerns: one small and one large. The small one is that this could use a little light copyediting. The prose is generally good yet has a bit more punctuation than necessary. I wouldn't hold off on promoting it over that. Several of the citations, though, raise questions about reliable sourcing. The first one that raised an eyebrow was the Talking-Heads.net bulletin board. Then a couple of blogs (particularly Peter Chilvers and Leo Abrahams) which might be citable if these individuals are prominent enough in the field to be considered experts--not quite my specialty here so please explain why you consider them citable.

Also some of the pieces in article format leave me with doubts about whether the content was vetted. For example, I checked the Topspin site description and read "Topspin is a media technology company dedicated to developing leading-edge marketing software and services that help artists and their partners build businesses and brands. We help artists manage their catalogs, connect with fans, and generate demand for music." That gives the impression more of a marketing partnership than a journalism venture. Also justpressplay.net appears to be a membership site where members self-publish reviews. There might be other questionable citations of this sort--suggest a double check of everything not cited to BBC, major newspapers, and the like. The article might need to be shortened if some of this material cannot be reverified elsewhere. Please contact me when you're ready for a second review. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 00:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No improvements to sourcing concerns in over three weeks. Failing for now; please try again when ready. Durova^Charge! 21:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Thanks I have been the main contributor to this article and I was the one who requested the review. When it was reviewed, I was not editing Wikipedia, so I did not make the requested changes until now:

• I have removed dubious citations, including the review from JustPressPlay (as noted, this is not a professional review.)
• Regarding the blogs of Peter Chilvers and Leo Abrahams: these men are not necessarily "prominent enough in the field to be considered experts" (they are professional musicians, though), but they worked on the album. Consequently, they are experts about the narrow topic of the production of this album - they were there.
• Your concern about Topspin's site is that it is a "marketing partnership [rather] than a journalism venture." This is also true, but as noted in the prior comment, they are notable in terms of marketing for the album, since they did it. They are only cited in terms of their own marketing strategy, so they are not relied on for matters where they are not reputable.
• I have gone over the text a couple of times to tighten it up and remove minor grammatical and syntactical problems; I will continue to do so over the next day or two.

As I posted on Durova's user talk, if he feels comfortable simply vetting it again and passing it for the GA review, then I appreciate his time. If he wants me to re-submit again, I will do that. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]