Talk:A Dramatic Turn of Events/GA3
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Glad to review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (reference section):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (reference section):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Things that need to be taken care of:
- Ref #4 cannot be considered reliable.
- Ref #5 has a CS1 error.
- As stated in the first GA review, you need to back up references from social media with ones from better sources. Otherwise, scrap the statement.
- Ref #11 is not a RS either.
- You should always put references at the end of segments. See the last paragraph of Writing and recording for an example where the ref needs to be moved.
- Same thing in the first paragraph of the next section.
- Refs #20 and 21 are not reliable. You should scrap that statement alltogether if no other sources are available for that claim.
- Ref #36: I wouldn't say that Ultimate Guitar is a RS.
- Citations needed for the release dates. Once more, you use this "Blabbermouth" source, which I cannot consider a reliable source.
- Supporting tour: Kicked off is a little colloquial.
- Again, there are several statements here where the sources are all not RS material
- Track listing needs sources, also, the track listing of the bonus editions should be brought into the appropriate format also used for the regular tracks.
Generally, this is a well written article prevented from achieving GA status at this point by the great lack of reliable sources. It is hard to imagine that for an album of a band as prominent as Dream Theater, only articles on blogs exist. I'll put this on hold for now.
- Thanks for your review. I went ahead and removed all Blabbermouth references except for one, which gives the translated version of a Greek interview that is no longer available. Is it alright to leave that in, or should it also be removed?
- With regard to the Twitter references, I was told by the first reviewer that Twitter references were OK as long as they were from a verified account, which Petrucci and LaBrie's are. Also, per WP:TWITTER, I don’t see any reason why the tweets in the article can’t be used. Can I leave those in there, or do I need to find other sources? Chances are, those sources will just reference the original tweets anyway.
- Just let me know what you think on those two questions, and I'll get them fixed. Worst case, could I have another week? I think the article is almost there.--Ktmartell (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Ktmartell: Considering WP:TWITTER, I believe it is OK, since "the article is not based primarily on such sources". However, I am still concerned about the sources in the Supporting tour section. Blogs like Lick Library or The PRP, do you have any indication that proves that those are reliable? One indicator that is often used is wether the authors can be traced, which does not seem to be the case here? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: I changed most of the references in the "Supporting tour" section, so hopefully that looks better. Just let me know if there are any other major concerns. Thanks again.--Ktmartell (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Ktmartell: Those look better! I'm sorry, I forgot one thing before: The last half-sentence in the Composition section, is that information covered by ref #14? If so, you should move the ref at the end of the sentence. If not, you should add a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: I couldn't find a source for it, so I just removed it.--Ktmartell (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- Alright, then it's a pass! Congrats :) Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: I couldn't find a source for it, so I just removed it.--Ktmartell (talk) 21:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Ktmartell: Those look better! I'm sorry, I forgot one thing before: The last half-sentence in the Composition section, is that information covered by ref #14? If so, you should move the ref at the end of the sentence. If not, you should add a source. Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Zwerg Nase: I changed most of the references in the "Supporting tour" section, so hopefully that looks better. Just let me know if there are any other major concerns. Thanks again.--Ktmartell (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
- @Ktmartell: Considering WP:TWITTER, I believe it is OK, since "the article is not based primarily on such sources". However, I am still concerned about the sources in the Supporting tour section. Blogs like Lick Library or The PRP, do you have any indication that proves that those are reliable? One indicator that is often used is wether the authors can be traced, which does not seem to be the case here? Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)