Talk:In Death Reborn/GA2

In Death Reborn

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 03:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Lead

Is it that important to mention the release of the second album?

"was received generally average-to-positive reviews" typo

I feel it would be better to mention the substance of what the critics were saying rather than their scores.

From what I understand, I do not think that you need to source information in the lead, so long as the information is present in the body and sourced there.

Edited the lead and stated the importance of why the second album is mentioned. I have added the substance of what the critics have said in the lead. Typo has been fixed. I have seen good articles with sources in the lead but if this is the case, it is no issue to remove the sources. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-release

The sentence on Reef the Last Cauze is messed up; it uses a comma before the citation, but the following text reads as a second sentence.

Paraphrase quotes better, should discuss what was said rather than presenting what was said. Try to stick to only the most important information whenever possible.

Inconsistent date formatting

Put AOTP in parenthesis after Army of the Pharaohs if you use abbreviation later on in the article. Make sure to also be consistent with whether it's abbreviated or not. Valid to reintroduce the full term later on in the article, but certainly should not alternate in such a short span.

I have edited these errors mentioned above. Fixed the sentence, reduced the chunks of quotes and paraphrased them, made the dates consistent and AOTP parenthesis in place. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Images

The back cover has the same rationale as the front, and the lack of anything other than text seems like it should just be removed entirely.

Frozen Memory cover art uses an invalid fair use rationale, as it identifies itself as the primary image for the article at the top of the article. It also needs a full rationale, no "n.a."

Removed the back cover, added the alternative cover instead, Frozen Memory cover art has beenremoved TwinTurbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The alt cover needs a different rationale than the main infobox cover.

Addeed a different rationale to the Alternative Cover TwinTurbo (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As it were, the rationale needs to be pretty strong I think to do a second cover in the infobox. Being that they are so similar, it seems that the article could suffice without it.

I've just removed it.

Critical reception

No need to hyphenate "generally-positive reviews" as being an ly implies that the words are related.

I'm highly concerned about how few sources are used in this section, and how much quoting is done. That level of quoting is dangerously close to being plagiarism and should be paraphrased to give us the basic details of what the sources said.

Paraphrased the entire section and fixed the hyphen. As with the sources, would be right to add more in terms of reviews? As each paragraph looks at a review from an individual source. TwinTurbo (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More sources would be good. I'm also just a bit concerned that the section is overly wordy. Feels like you could pare what the reviewers said by a lot. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have added four sources into the section. Pared down the quotes as suggested by Miniapolis but I think that the information as of now is useful enough to keep. I have paraphrased it, is this not enough to suffice?TwinTurbo (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My main concern is stuff like this: "explosive neck-shredder that feels like the punch in the face the record needs after 15 minutes of predictable, water-treading hip hop." It feels like the kind of stuff that could be cut down.

@TwinTurbo: Once the Reception has better paraphrasing, I would be able to pass the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrased the CR section including the metaphoric description "explosive neck-shredder" and "late-album killer" amongst others.TwinTurbo (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]