Talk:Korn (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SMasters (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   There are numerous grammar issues in the prose, some examples are given below. There are more - I will not list every single one. I suggest a third-party do a thorough copy edit of this. If you can't find anyone, you can try WP:GOCE/REQ.

   • "Korn (promoted with a ya as KoЯn)" - Is that meant to be "pronounced"?

   • Fixed

   • "The band would records at Indigo Ranch Studios" - The band would "record".

   • Fixed

   • "Stephen Thomas Erlewine of allmusic..." - Allmusic is spelt with a capital 'A'.

   • Fixed

   • Common words such as "loitering" should not be wikified.

   • Fixed

   • There are three sentences, almost one ofter the other, that contain "began playing". Rephrase these to eliminate the constant repetition.

   • Fixed

   • "The equipment Korn used is what gave the music its it..." - its it

   • Fixed

   • All music GA chart numbers are written alphabetically and not numerically. E.g. charted at number seventy-two (not 72).

   • Per WP:ORDINAL, it's unnecessary to spell out numbers greater than nine.

   I am aware of what WP:MOS says, however, as I have already mentioned, all GAs that I have seen to do with music, it has been insisted that music charts be spelt out alphabetically. See Madonna (Madonna album)#Chart performance as an example, and there are many more if you look. I can't find the exact place where it says this must be like this, perhaps it is from a discussion at one of the music projects, but I have been told that they must be this way. Please change these or I will need to get an second opinion. - SMasters (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Okay, well I've fixed it. CrowzRSA 15:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for doing the fixes. SMasters (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Article is properly referenced and has no WP:OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Article covers all major aspects and is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article complies to WP:NPOV.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Article is stable.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Image tag checks out.

7. Overall: There are numerous grammar and punctuation issues in the prose, which need to be rectified before the article can be passed. I will allow up to 7 days for these to be fixed. - SMasters (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

   I've fixed everything you've asked, and I copyedited the page, and I think it looks good now. CrowzRSA 02:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

   Thanks for all the work done on the article. I am now confident that it now meets all the requirements for a GA and I am happy to pass it. Well done. – SMasters (talk) 03:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

   Pass/Fail: