Talk:Drum and bass/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 19, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
The prose style could be improved by removing phrases such as:

The name "drum and bass" should not lead to the assumption that tracks are constructed solely from these elements.

Radio friendly tracks like Shy FX's "Shake Ur Body" often have higher BPMs than ominous techstep productions which might eject the uninitiated very quickly from a dancefloor.

Still, purchasing drum and bass music can involve searching for new releases in specialized record shops or using one of the many online vinyl, CD and MP3 retailers. These are just examples, I recommend a comprehensive copy-edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (MoS):
Literature list should be moved to a further reading section above ELS Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
There are a large number of unreferenced sections and paragraphs, some citation needed tags remain un-addressed, I have added more as a guide. Ref #1 referring to another article is not good enough. insertion of links such as (see http://youtube.com/Andohhh) into articles is not a characteristic of a good article. {http://www.realplayaz.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13411} is not an RS; [1] is not RS; That is just a start. Please read WP:RS and WP:V and address. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
{http://www.realplayaz.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=13411} is not an RS. Ref #37 is dead. tyhere are a number of inline htmls which should be removed or cited properly. [2] is not RS; [3] is dead (404); youtube is not RS;
c (OR):
I cannot be certain without comprehensive referencing. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
OK, I am delisting this as there are so many issues. This may be challenged at WP:GAR. This could well be a Good Artcile in the future if these issues are addressed. Please fix these issues and submit at WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]