Talk:Bad (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Absolutely well-written all over. I have gone over the prose a couple times and see no mistakes at all. There is sufficient weight on all of the major topics, clearly describing everything that should be mentioned in a substantial album article. I think that the article goes into a very high level of detail regarding every possible aspect that should belong in an ideal article on an album. The conception, history, sounds, critical reception, awards and legacy are all written on at great length without feeling overlong or trivial, and everything matches up to a source. All of the source links check out, and every citation used appears reputable.

There are only a couple of minor points that I would like to make before passing:

Stuff I changed

I removed the Rhapsody and Virgin links from the reviews as they did not look reliable. I also reformatted the reviews table so that it used inline refs instead of "[link]." The Yahoo! Music review didn't look reputable or substantial either (not to mention its placeholder date of 1/1/1987; clearly it wasn't written then).
The names of the individual Grammy awards didn't need to be in quotes, so I removed them.

Stuff still needing change

Personnel needs a source (ideally the liner notes). I also linked the first instance of each instrument name.

Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last sentence of "Release and marketing" needs a source.

Done Crystal Clear x3 [talk] 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once this passes, you might want to consider nominating this for Featured Article.

Reviewer: Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two tiny issues I had have been resolved, so this is now good to go. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]