Talk:Extraordinary Machine/GA1

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 Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

Lead: The article's lead is only one paragraph and does not adequately summarize the entire 2,600-word article. In particular, there's very little on development and nothing on release and critical reception.
Referencing/Verifiability: Large swaths of the article are apparently unreferenced. Ex:
- "By late 2002 Apple, Brion, engineer Tom Biller and percussionist Matt Chamberlain were at work in a wing of the Paramour Mansion, which was built in 1923 by silent film star Antonio Moreno; the four used the building as a temporary residence from early 2003, and Chamberlain said the experience of recording there was "completely amazing". With the album half complete in April 2003, Brion, Apple and Biller worked at Cello Studios, and a new release date of July 22 was announced. Brion and Apple then travelled to England later that month, to record strings and orchestration for the songs at Abbey Road Studios in London. The album was completed from Brion's perspective by May 2003, at which point the release was pushed back to September 30. But by Fall 2003 Apple and Brion were back in the recording studio adding finishing touches to the album, thus forcing back the release date to February 2004 (this was later changed to "early 2004")."
- The above is but one of many sections that need additional referencing.
- Why is there a link[1] to a (now non-existent) copyright violation?
- "Early album cover art. It is believed the plant on the cover is an Agapanthus"—original research much?
- What makes the following sources reliable?
  - [2][3][4][5] (considering many of them are deadlinks now, they should be removed anyhow; please check the rest of the article for deadlinks as well.)
- Why are the citations split into a bizarre mix of notes and refs? Everything must be inline cited, and the use of only month and years for some magazine cites (Spin, February 2004) is not good enough. All the citations should be consistently formatted, preferably with {{cite web}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite journal}}, et al., and there should be a article-wide consistency in how things are cited.
- Why are there a bunch of reviews to the bootleg release? Either they are important enough to mention in the article or they should be axed entirely. Why is [6] an external link? What about [7]? The external links section needs major cleanup.
- "A minority of publications commented less favourably about the album"—original research.
Images/media: File:ExtraordinaryCvr.jpg is redundant with File:Extraordinary Machine.jpg and should be removed. (By the way, the cover art was badly compressed. A smaller-resolution, less lossy copy would be superior and still in keeping with WP:NFCC. File:Better Version Of Me.ogg and File:A Better Version Of Me.ogg have poor fair use rationales, and there is no substantial critical commentary in the article to warrant their appearance.
Prose: Overall, decent enough.
Comprehensiveness: Sections of the article, particularly critical reception, are underdeveloped and/or now outdated ("As of April 19..." of what year?) You have a bunch of reviews in the infobox cluttering up the article, but don't use half of them.

Given the above issues, I believe that this article currently fails criterion 1b, 2, 3, and 6. Given that a near-complete overhaul of the referencing system is required, and that the entire article needs to be rechecked to ensure that cites are supporting information given, I am boldly delisting this article. It may be renominated at WP:GAN at any time, but I strongly suggest dealing with the above issues before then. If there are any questions or comments, they should be directed to my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:59, 17 January 2010 (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.