Talk:AIM (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude. I'll be reviewing this article. I've just had a quick peruse so far, and it looks like a quality article. Expect my initial thoughts in a couple of hours. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Chris. I'd hoped to get the lion's share of the work on this article done tonight, but my kids have just spent the past 2 hours running amok, so this had to go on the back-burner. Of the work I've done tonight:

The prose is well-written, grammatically-sound, and with no fancruft.

The prose is well sourced. There were some issues regarding dead links and refs with access dates but no URLs, but I've been WP:BOLD and fixed those myself. One issue I've found so far that I haven't been able to rectify is in the Music and lyrics section: ie, the paragraph regarding "Freedun" and the use of the word "rate"/"rape". Maybe I've been blind, but I don't believe the cited source clarifies that M.I.A. uses the word "rate" instead of "rape" - it just seems to reference the actual controversy. If so, then her use of "rate" needs an additional source.

The source contains the sentence "However, MIA has stated the word is clearly "rate", going as far as to publish the full lyric sheet online." -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I guess I was blind. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image of Diplo is from creative commons, and its usage is justified by both captions and contextual significance.

Otherwise, this seems like a good article to me. I'll look at this more tomorrow, and let you know if there's anything else. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So I've just spent the past 4 hours on my phone going through this article, and I'm satisfied it meets the GA criteria. Although it's shorter than other articles I've reviewed, there is no specific guideline at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles which states an article needs to be of a certain length to meet the criteria. Of the prose that is there, it's all of a high-quality, and is fully referenced using reliable, notable sources.

Closing

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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:

Congratulations, Chris. Homeostasis07 (talk) 21:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]