Talk:Avenged Sevenfold/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Quick-fail. Several passages in the section history are confusing. This article is short for a mainstream band, and needs to be expanded [and later summarized to include only the most relevant facts]. The section "Inception (1999–2004)", may lacks of major aspects about the band's formation. This article also needs to incorporate information about the development of the band's albums, the response of the music critics, better coverage of their tours, etc.--Cannibaloki 23:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, There are a lot of question marks there. You could have checked for a lot of these things and it looks like you didn't. KezianAvenger (talk) 12:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Allow me to explain this better for anyone who doesn't quite understand it all. 1. It's confusing in places. 2. Lack of sources, We can easily fix this. 3. Unsure of how broadly it covers the topic. 4. It is Neutral. 5. Unsure of stability. (It is stable though) 6. Images are legal but could use captions and one or two more. 7. Quick-Failed due to being confusing and short for such a mainstream band. KezianAvenger (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)