Talk:Flood (They Might Be Giants album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 14:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a very well written article. I'll complete the review within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 14:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Initial comments

"Many fans, including many young listeners exposed to the album through Tiny Toon Adventures, were first exposed to They Might Be Giants's music through Flood" - doesn't make grammatical sense here
"for Record Store Day Black Friday" - aren't these in two different months?
There is nothing on the recording and production section in the lead
"The album was recorded at Skyline Studios, not far from Pass Studios" - sounds a little unencyclopedic. You might be better off giving a real location instead?
"The image was captured by Margaret Bourke-White, part of a series taken" - as part of
"and Flansburgh on guitars" - WP:OVERLINK for guitars - unless it's a specific guitar?

References

Ref 51 is dead
Ref 48 is dead

On hold

That's all I could find, but other than that it appears to be a mostly solid article. The lead could summarise better and there are a couple of dead refs, but if all of the above are addressed then it should have no problem passing the GAN. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days. Thanks ☯ Jaguar ☯ 13:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - not listed

I'm so sorry to do this, but this has been inactive for the standard seven days and I'm going have to close this for now. This article is looking like GA material in truth; so if all of the above can be addressed then this should have no problem passing. If you do renominate, I'll be more than happy to take it again and I would pass it considering everything above are fixed. Regards ☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scrap that, I looked at the history and saw you editing it. Please get back to me by tomorrow and I'll see if it meets the criteria by then. Thanks!

☯ Jaguar ☯ 22:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jaguar: I have tried to address everything you mentioned above. Can you let me know if there is still anything that needs to be done? Sorry for any confusion. This is my first GAN. Also, the one thing I didn't address in my edits: Record Store Day proper is in April, but the group that organizes it has started doing a second "celebration" on Black Friday. Some more info is here. ~ Boomur [☎] 15:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close - promoted

Phew, thanks for getting back to this in time! Don't worry about the Record Store day, it won't affect anything at all. Well done on brining up your first GA, this article now meets the criteria and has improved in leaps and bounds. Well done ☯ Jaguar ☯ 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]