Talk:Double Allergic

Double Allergic has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
December 23, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
January 12, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
March 5, 2010	Featured topic removal candidate	Demoted

Current status: Good article

Australia: Music Low‑importance

	Australia portal Double Allergic is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian music (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Powderfinger (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Powderfinger, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.PowderfingerWikipedia:WikiProject PowderfingerTemplate:WikiProject PowderfingerPowderfinger articles

Fair use rationale for Image:Double Allergic.jpg

Image:Double Allergic.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been added G1 gg y ! _{Review me!} 04:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woot. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 10:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article Assessment

This is my assessment of the (current revision) article. I only had to make a few susbsequent changes which was for the punctuation and grammar, per MOS. And, below is the assessment.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
It is stable.
(no edit wars etc.)
It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
Overall:
a Pass/Fail:

Further anaylsis on findings:

The album image was correctly tagged, used appropriately and a fair-use rationale was applied. Y
I can find no original research. Y
Everything is reliably sourced and is verifiable. Y
Grammar, prose and spelling is excellent.Y
Everything is readable, and doesn't incorporate words that a beginning editor or reader wouldn't understand.Y
The article is focused and addresses a broad range of information without going into unnecessary detail. Y
It avoids POV style, however some lines like "rather than a high cost producer as they did with Tony Cohen on Parables for Wooden Ears", may need to be modified.Y
- Done [1] — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But apart from that no reason not to. Well done. Rt. 12:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 01:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Double Allergic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on Double Allergic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]