Talk:Howling Bells/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Malconfort (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead does not summarize the article. After all, why this band is notable? I think you should explain that for readers who don't know the history of this musical group.--Malconfort (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to and changed parts of the lead to better summarize the article. I've also re-worded some of the prose throughout and think that it reads better. What do you think? Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Why dream pop? It's unsourced, right?
Done – I've removed this. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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 copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
On hold for a week.--Malconfort (talk) 03:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article received the copy-edit that was requested.--Malconfort (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Howling Bells are an Australian indie rock band which formed in London in 2004. Please clarify.
All were from pop rock group, Waikiki, which disbanded. This should not be merged [into] and explained in the first sentence?
2009 saw the release of their follow-up album, Radio Wars, it was met with mixed reviews, though, it would end up charting in both the UK and Australia. An album can top the charts and be detested by the critics.

See above. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appeared on "Album of the Year" lists for a number of different publications, as well as a "Top 66 Albums of 2000–2006" list. "Top 66 Albums of 2000–2006" list? Why the latter, whose publisher was not identified is so special?--Malconfort (talk) 02:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an achievement I feel should be noted. Publisher names weren't included for the "Album of the Year" lists, so I figured it fit the pattern better to leave it unsourced. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this. Mattchewbaca (meow) 22:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion: What do you want a second opinion on? Jezhotwells (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that as well. I suspect it's a second opinion on if the article meets GA criteria. I think the article is not that clear, and could do with a copyedit to make it clearer and more readable. This appears to have been mentioned in the previous review, though it's difficult to extract from that review what points still needed working on. It appears to me that the article contains a lot of useful information, though could do with some editing to present that information in a readable and easily understood format. The nominator, Mattchewbaca, is a new user and probably could do with some guidance on how to present an article so that it reads well. The reviewer, Malconfort, is an experienced Wikipedian with several GA listings in this topic area, so is well placed to give appropriate advice. My feeling is that Malconfort should give Mattchewbaca some advice on what to do to get this article to meet GA criteria, allow a reasonable time for Mattchewbaca to achieve this (seven days), and then make a decision to list or close and allow Mattchewbaca a longer time to develop the article and renominate. SilkTork *^{Tea time} 10:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay and for not having answered you Jezhotwells. Thanks for your input SilkTork, I think a copy-edit will "improve this article sufficiently" to make it a good one.--Malconfort (talk) 00:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malconfort, tell me the precise areas of the article that you think are lacking. You need to demonstrate, by example, at least a couple of sentences that you think can be better clarified. Mattchewbaca (meow) 04:01, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need a second opinion here, or are we back to regular reviewing now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please be advised that this article has been copy edited as per a request to the Guild of Copy Editors. Armadillopteryx (talk)