Talk:21st Century Breakdown/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello hello. I will reviewing this article. Waited a month to give it some breathing space from the release date. It should be done within a week at the latest. Comment about anything that takes your fancy. I will do just that. Rafablu88 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Have copyedited all of it. There are still outstanding points, mostly to do with references. On hold till everything is sorted out. Rafablu88 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll fix all the references later today when I have more time. Tim meh 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It looks fine after copyediting.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
OK on this part.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Clear focus on all aspects of the event. Might need a few sentences in the future if it wins any awards.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Everything explained dispassionately.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
Be careful of vandal IP addresses.
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail: PASS Rafablu88 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the great review, and especially for copyediting the article. I hope to see you around. Tim meh 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POINTS

LEAD/BOX

The Guardian and The Observer are not only published by the same media entity (which would not be a problem) but share staff and facilities, too. Please replace one or the other with a new professional review source so as not to give undue weight/prominence to a specific company. Rafablu88 20:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I know, NPOV is about viewpoints, not companies. Each author has his own viewpoint on the subject. I could see a possible clashing in this case, though. I'll see if I can find another review to replace one of those mentioned. Timmeh 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The point wasn't really about NPOV. I just wanted to make sure the article was as comprehensive and nuanced as it could be. Having two reviews from colleagues who probably see and talk to each other every day is maybe a bit off. If you don't mind, I'll have a look and link one myself. Rafablu88 23:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My removal of the link to Hollywood, California was reverted. Please remove the link as Hollywood, California is a universally known place like London, New York City, Paris etc. Save linking to things that add and inform about the article such as guitar harmonics as a random example. Rafablu88 21:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've unlinked it in the prose, but I think it's OK in the infobox. Check out other featured articles, including Thriller (album) and Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses). Timmeh 23:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Alright, maybe it's me being a bit pedantic after one too many FACs. But I appreciate that you removed them in the body. Just remember that "other stuff exists" arguments don't go down so well in FAC if you're tempted to send it there in the future. Rafablu88 23:44, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REFLIST

1 Remove '.net' and link publisher.
4 It's print media not web. Remove the scan link and cite the magazine issue, date and page. Link publisher. Rafablu88 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7 Link publisher.
8 Publisher in italics and link as well.
9 same as 8 and also remove 'magazine'.
10 No publisher.
11 FANSITE!!! Remove content or find reliable source.
12 YOUTUBE!!! Cite TV show instead.
13 Publisher should be "Spotlightingnews". Not done yet. Rafablu88 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16 Remove 'magazine'.
17 Link publisher.
22 Link publisher.
23 Publisher should be "Rocklouder".
24 Link publisher.
28 FANSITE!!! Remove content or find reliable source.
29 Remove '.co.uk' and link publisher.
30 Remove publisher italics.
37 Link publisher.
38 Publisher should be "Newsvine".
41 BARE REF!!!
43 Publisher should be The Times.
44 Publisher should be BBC.
45 No publisher.
46 Publisher should be Entertainment Weekly.
47 BARE REF!!!
48 Copies info from Rolling Stone. Cite that instead.
49 Remove Rolling Stone as author. Italics and link on publisher.
51 Remove '.com' and link publisher.
52 Add proper author and publisher should be Spin.
54 Link publisher (ARIA).
56 Publishing date.
58 Add language like 67 and publisher should be "Hitlisten".
63 Publisher should be "Musicline".
71 Link publisher (RIANZ).
76 Add language like 67 and link publisher Hitlistan.
77 Publisher should be Schweizer Hitparade.
79 Link publisher.
80 same as 79
82 same as 79/80
83 same as 63

Rafablu88 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the references up to number 38 so far. As for linking the publisher, wouldn't it be overlinking to do so if the publisher has already been linked in a previous reference? Tim meh 01:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Each citation+reference is treated as binary in case someone just clicks on a single citation without even looking at anything else. Rafablu88 02:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done The references are fixed, except for the "Hitlisten" one. The source is in English, and I don't see "Hitlisten" anywhere at the source. The bottom of the page says "Copyright © 2009 danishcharts.com." Tim meh 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Put the wrong number. Fixed the actual ref myself. Rafablu88 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REFERENCES REQUIRED

Personnel section. Rafablu88 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the album liner notes. I've added the citation to the top of the section; you can move it if it looks awkward there. Tim meh 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"600,000+" sold in U.S. Rafablu88 00:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DONE Tim meh 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian ARIA Charts give platinum discs for 40,000+ sales. Sales ref is lower. Sort out the discrepancy (remove one or the other, or find a new sales ref). Rafablu88 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've removed the sales column altogether. There were several problems with it, including scarce sources and redundancy to the certifications column. It really didn't serve much of a purpose as it was. Tim meh 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]