Talk:Beastie Boys/GA1

GA Review

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

Main points

I will be undertaking this review. This article contains a lot of detail, and covers the full history of the band. Although it has strengths, it has a long way to go before meeting the standards for good article status, and i will effectively quick-fail it. If editor(s) believe they can respond to the issues below in a week, by all means ping me on my talk page and we can-reconsider, or take it to GAR, but my view is that it would be better to deal with the issues over time and re-nominate.

The article is seriously under-referenced, and has citation tags. All major claims should be referenced, and quotes, whether of band members or others, should certainly be referenced.
The in-line citations that are there need work on their presentation (need more than just link titles - publisher info, retrieval dates etc)
Wikipedia itself should not be used as a reference, which occurs in several of the footnotes
There are references use where it is unclear why they should be treated as reliable sources (eg what seem to be minor commercial websites)
There are published books about the BBs, or which incorporate their work in some way. At least some of these should be read and cited for such a major band.
The section on the upcomnig album is way too detailed, given the thing isn't even out yet, and is padded with band quotes. This is a product of recentism and should be resisted.
There should be an awards and nominations section (though it need not be in table form, as in Rage Against the Machine).
There are one-sentence paragraphs with facts that do not seem to fit into the broader theme of the section. This is most obvious in the Hello Nasty seciton - the earliest parts of the history don't suffer from the same problem.
Although it may need copyediting in places, the written text is actually pretty good for the most part.

For examples of GAs on long-lived bands, see Hoodoo Gurus, Rage Against the Machine or The Beatles (though for my taste, the RATM article has too many direct quotes of band members).

As a fan of BB, all I can say is keep on improving this article, and I hope it'll come back to GA nominations one day! hamiltonstone (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Massive removal of content

A massive removal of content has taken out some very encyclopedic content. It needed better sourcing, but I don't see any indication that search took place. Some other changes were also made, and I don't have time to sort them all out, but here are the two version [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's back! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 15:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]