Talk:WTF?!/GA1
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Jclemens (talk · contribs) 02:39, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- Fine.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Lead should probably indicate the chart positions of the album and its singles. Given the length of the rest of the article, the lead should probably be longer, and could be expanded to two paragraphs easily.
- A. Prose quality:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- Fine
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- Fine
- C. No original research:
- Spot checking a few references... it doesn't explicitly say e.g. "this was the first time they had lyrics in Italian..." but it does everything BUT state it. Everything not explicit seems a straightforward inference.
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- Appropriate and consistent with what I've seen and reviewed in other album GAs.
- B. Focused:
- Fine
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- The article quotes a lot of different sources, which are all positive. Did anyone remotely important not like the album? I am not a content expert enough to know.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Fine
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Fine
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Fine
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Well-prepared. I want to hear about negative reviews, if any, and see the lead expanded a bit, but this could arguably be passed as-is. On hold for review.
- Pass or Fail:
Thanks! I really scrounged for reviews, but they are pretty much universally positive. The only other reliable source review I found was here, and it's also quite positive. I think part of the "problem", if it is one, is that most of the reviews are from genre magazines, not general music mags like maybe Rolling Stone or the like, although even the Allmusic review is positive. I did expand the lead though. —Torchiest talkedits 04:22, 30 July 2012 (UTC)