Jump to content

Talk:ATLiens/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: DivaKnockouts (talk · contribs) 02:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, here it is. Forgive me as I'm not familiar with the group's work so I may get something wrong. Just let me know. — DivaKnockouts (talk) 04:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The duo sought to improve on their 1994 debut album Southernplayalisticadillacmuzik and gain respect for their burgeoning Southern hip hop scene." — Okay, I don't understand this sentence at all. It comes off as confusing to me, could you consider rewording?
  • Why isnt it noted that the album charted internationally?
  • Otherwise, the lead looks very well structured and organized. Good job.
Background
Recording
Composition
  • Everything looks fine here, including the sound samples.
Title and promotion
Reception
  • Was at least one negative review? All I see here are positive reviews.
  • Again, why isn't it noted that the album charted internationally?
    • Usually, the article's prose is based on secondary sources that have written about the topic. Only charting at 16 and 82 in Canada and Germany didnt really get much independent coverage, so it wasnt notable enough to include here, whereas the album's domestic success was. Dan56 (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK of "Jazzy Belle"
      • Charting in the top 20 of a country is not notable? I think it deserves at least some type of mention. Would I suggest "The album reached the top 20 in Canada, while attains chart success in one other country internationally"? — DivaKnockouts (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's simply not necessary; notability is decided by how much attention this information received from reliable independent sources (Wikipedia:Notability). The album's chart debut and sales were covered by news articles and warranted inclusion in the article's prose. Speaking of its charting in Canada as the "top 20" is fanciful and makes it seem more important than it actually is; if it was notable, wouldnt there have been more coverage apart from an archived magazine page? Per WP:LEAD, the "emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources"; the importance of it charting at number 16 in Canada is not established in the article. Dan56 (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Every charting from the bottom-of-the-article section doesnt need to be reiterated as prose; the duo arent Canadian, and number 16 on a chart that ranks sales in a country significantly smaller than the US is an awkward one-liner at best, but that would disrupt the flow of the prose, which exclusively discusses Outkast's market. Dan56 (talk) 23:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. --Khanassassin 19:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy
Tracklisting
  • This needs a source.
  • The sampling really needs a source.
Personnel
  • This section is unreferenced. Each section needs a reliable source.
References
Overall article
  • I see you change from OutKast to Outkast, stay consistent with which one it is.


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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:

· · ·

DivaKnockouts (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the review! Basilisk4u (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]