Talk:Amnesiac (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Rp0211 (talk · contribs) 17:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:
Pass/Fail:

Infobox

No issues

Lead

Amnesiac is the fifth studio album by English rock band Radiohead, produced by Nigel Godrich and released in June 2001 on Parlophone. → Opening sentence should only include information about what studio album number it is and who it is for ("Amnesiac is the fifth studio album by English rock band Radiohead.")
Amnesiac debuted at #1 on the UK Albums Chart and #2 on the US Billboard 200. → Change "#1" and #2" to "number one" and "number two"
...and released in June 2001 on Parlophone. → Write full release date, and change "Parlophone" to "Parlophone Records"
In 2012, Rolling Stone ranked the album #320 in their updated version of The 500 Greatest Albums of All Time. → Change "#320" to "number 320"
Expand this lead section to include things like international chart information, critical reception, reissue, etc.

Recording and relation to Kid A

Change section name to "Background and recording"

Music and lyrics

An extended version of the track was released as a B-side for the "Knives Out" single. → Verifiable?

Art and packaging

No issues

Reception

"...many considered it inferior to its sister album Kid A." Source? (I ask because I considered it then, and still do, as superior. Perhaps I am in the minority, but I have zero stats to back up either assertion and therefore believe the author to be imparting opinion in place of what should be only fact.)71.202.118.211 (talk)

Track listing

Source needed to verify this information

Personnel

Source needed to verify this information

Chart positions

Fix table to make sure all are in alphabetical order and that the positions are centered in the column

References

OVERALL MESSAGE WITH THIS SECTION: Proofread these references to fix the mistakes; I listed issues I could find with the first sixteen as a guide.
Reference 1 → Include publisher of Chicago Tribune
Reference 3 → Include record label
Reference 4 → "Rolling Stone magazine" should just be "Rolling Stone"; Publisher of magazine is needed
Reference 6 → Include "Viacom" as publisher
Reference 7 → Include "Bauer Media Group" as publisher
Reference 8 → Publisher needed
References 10, 16 → Follow archive format for references
References 12, 14 → Follow reference formatting for written publications

After thoroughly reviewing this article, I have decided to put it on hold at this time. There are a few prose and citation issues, but the biggest issue is the reference formatting. I will give you the general seven days to fix these mistakes and/or address ones you believe do not concern good article status. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask and I will be more than happy to help. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 17:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since all of the issues have not been addressed and it has been more than the seven days granted to fix the mistakes, I am forced to fail the article at this time. Once these issues are addressed, however, you are more than welcome to nominate the article again. Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 23:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]