Talk:Catch a Fire/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 23:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Linkrot: one fixed and one tagged, no source found at the Internet archive.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 00:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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):
The article is not well written. Some examples from the lead:

"Catch a Fire, released on 13 April 1973, is the fifth album for Jamaican reggae band Bob Marley & The Wailers" - "is the fifth album for"?
You can say both "for" and "by", does not matter
This has been changed. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Businessman Danny Sims and singer-songwriter Johnny Nash decided one day to work on a soundtrack with Marley in Sweden, but after the latter's departure from London, the Wailers were in a hairy situation." Confusing ungrammatical and the word "hairy" is not encyclopaedic
Then suggest a better wording
I have reworded this section. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"After Marley's return to London to present Blackwell the tapes, the producer reworked on the tracks" - "to present Blackwell"? - "the producer reworked on the tracks" Really this is shoddy and illiterate.
Not sure why you think so; it is fine as it was, but I changed to "to present the tapes to Blackwell", but you can say "to present him the tapes" or "to present the tape to him". For me the first sounds much better
Changed to "reworked the tracks". --Michig (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Although unsuccessful, the album's supporting concert tour throughout England and the United States helped establish the band as international stars." What was unsuccessful?
Well, guess what?
As there was no explanation of in what sense it was unsuccessful I have removed that part - if it established the band as international stars I would say it was pretty successful. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing changes of tense throughout.
You need to read the article then. The album was unsuccessful, the concert not.--GoP _T ^C _N 13:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this away and get it re-written in good plain English before renominating at WP:GAN. The prose throughout is very poor indeed.
I was hoped the prose was OK

Inconsistencies include a mixture of styles for currency amounts, viz. 8000 pounds and US$9000
Yes, that is correct, and should stay so.
Clearly, the nominator has a poor command of written English and needs to seek the assistance of another editor who has those skills. It is not the job of reviewers to rewrite the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, you should stop reviewing articles I have nominated. You always say the same bad-faith and insulting comments.--GoP _T ^C _N 13:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Ref #20 is a dead link.

The personnel section is unreferenced.
The liner notes are actually the reference.

"All songs were written by Bob Marley, except where noted" needs referencing
This is nonsense... please think about it

Reference formatting is inconsistent, viz. Refs #21, 22
That was changed by the first nominator
These two (now 26 & 27) currently just link to the Allmusic overview page, possibly due to Allmusic's site 'improvement' - they either need replacing or removing. --Michig (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent use of bibliography books in citations, you should just use page number and author name if the book is listed in the bibliography. Some multiply referenced books are not in the bibliography and some books in the bibliography are not used for citations. See WP:CITE
That was changed by the first nominator
This is problematic to some extent as several references include URLs linking to particular pages, which would be lost if replaced by simple Author, page references.--Michig (talk) 08:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will work on this... :/--GoP _T ^C _N 09:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The background section is not well written and more questions are posed than answered.
Hopefully better now. --Michig (talk) 08:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article appears stable
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):
Images are tagged and captioned, although the captions could be written in a more encyclopaedic style.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
I am placing this article on hold. Major improvements need to be made within seven days if it is to achieve Ga status. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Following this message on my talk page I will, as requested, fail this nomination. Unfortunately the nominator does not appreciate the importance of writing in good plain English and prefers to resort to unsigned insults such as these. The nominator clearly needs to understand the criteria before renominating. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.