Talk:Blink-182/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Passed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Tom Delonge is still in the band. Text says he is not. He says otherwise: https://www.facebook.com/officialtomdelonge/photos/a.161059613916386.30214.161055970583417/867662499922757/?type=1&theater — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.76.67.233 (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

Has a reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:46, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prose is clear and readable. I'm not seeing any significant problems, and I'll do any copyediting as I continue the review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NPOV - initially I felt that some of the claims about the band were excessive, but a variety of sources do support what is said. There are a couple of points which still need clarifying, but on the whole I'm not seeing an imbalance - indeed, there are negative comments in the Legacy section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:00, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article is informative and detailed. Major points appear to be well covered. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 12:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Query

Images are OK, though File:Soma San Diego flyer.jpg and File:WMAA Blink.jpg are copyright images used under fair use which requires that the use must be related to relevant discussion in the article. I'm not seeing that discussion in either case. Also, in both cases the captions are possibly a little too long, per WP:Caption. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What does the AllMusic page have that this article does not have? Readers are being directed there in the External links section; but if this is to be a GA standard article, it should have broad enough coverage to contain all the important elements that AllMusic has. (This comes under WP:LAYOUT, a GA criteria) SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Focus. There appears to be too much fine detail for a general article. While the article should also be of interest to fans of the band, the main audience is the general public who are looking for an overview of the main points of the band; detail such as "Key's girlfriend, Anne Hoppus, introduced her brother Mark to DeLonge on August 2, 1992. The two clicked instantly and played for hours in DeLonge's garage" is unlikely to be of interest, and may irritate the general reader who are simply looking for the key facts. If a reader wishes to get into such fine detail, they can go to one of the book sources listed in the Bibliography. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

General comments

The statement "Blink-182 was one of the most popular bands at the turn of the millennium, and spearheaded the second wave of pop punk and its journey into the mainstream" is sourced to a book I'm not able to consult at the moment. I've had a search on the internet, Google Books, and in the usual places, but I can't find another source to support this statement. It's a strong statement, and I'd like to be able to verify all aspects of it it. Is there another source which can confirm this statement? I found an About.com page - [1], though I haven't yet checked if About.com is considered a reliable source. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion on WP:RSN is apparently where people are directed for views on About.com being a reliable source. It appears that consensus is that it is not because the authors are bloggers rather than respected journalists. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:42, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, this source is useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for long delay - I have been seriously busy elsewhere. I should have time to finish the review this weekend. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the band timeline really necessary? Per MOS:TABLE and WP:EMBED we limit the use of tables to when the information is complicated and a graphic presentation would be helpful. I'm not seeing that is the case here. Indeed, it could make the band's history look more complex than it is. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Passed

I think there are aspects which still need working on as mentioned above - but that is more in line with tidying up rather than significant flaws. The information is accurate and is sourced, and the article is organised appropriately. Some trimming and tidying up would benefit the general reader, but that is more for ongoing development rather than work needed to be done to meet the GA criteria. Listing. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]