Talk:Greatest Hits (Blink-182 album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The compilation was released alongside a DVD of the same name, collecting the band's music videos to that point. - Consider writing '..a collection of the band's music videos at that point in time' or similar. ~~Nevertheless, the possible deal loomed over the band in addition to growing internal tension. - Consider changing this to '...loomed over the band, contributing to internal tension' or similar~~ In addition, DeLonge disliked Barker's new reality television series, Meet the Barkers; he disliked television cameras everywhere, feeling as though his personal privacy was invaded - Try not to use disliked twice in one sentence. ~~Try to keep the capitalization of the band consistent throughout this article. I know it can kind of go either way.~~
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Fix formatting for the following: ~~GFK Chart-Track Albums: Week {{{week}}}, {{{year}}}". Chart-Track.IRMA. Retrieved July 26, 2016.~~ ~~‹See Tfm›Greatest Hits (Japanese Edition) (liner notes). Blink-182.Japan]]: Geffen Records. 2005. UICF-1055.~~
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	I do not want a citation for every single track. However, a citation for where you got the track lengths would be good. A quick Google search gave me different (barely) results. One citation for track length should be sufficient. ~~Consider using {{rp}} for the page numbers; it helps condense the citations. (pretty strong recommendation)~~
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	~~Consider adding in a small section on artwork~~
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~Critical reception seems really, really short compared to other album articles. Please expand if possible.~~
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.

Review comments

I'll be reviewing this throughout the day. Kees08 (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Saginaw-hitchhiker: Review complete, please address things noted in review or provide rationale to not include those changes. 04:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Implemented everything you suggested! One note:

I imagined the critical reception section might come up. My explanation is that there is just not that many reviews for this particular greatest hits, which is strange since there were plenty of music publications in 2005. I have searched, and the only other ones available are amateur stuff (sputnikmusic, ultimate-guitar).

Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]