Talk:Lady Croissant/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 15:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do somewhen, maybe today

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
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, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Comment: Thanks, GOP. I look forward to your review. Please know that I DO intend to add the DNA magazine source above to the article. However, I am unable to do so at my current computer due to content blocking (gay magazine?). I am not sure if this source contains any information not already presented in the article, or if it affects GAN, but just know that I am aware that I need to look at the source as soon as possible and incorporate into the article accordingly. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:25, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a gay publication makes serious music reviews (of course Playboy also does music reviews, but apart from porno pictures, it is also musically concentrated (interviews with prominent musician, reviews by professional reviewers, etc.). Now the question is how reliable is this magazine and are the reviewers really professional?

Dabsolver check: ok
Checklinks check: one dead (Ref 8 Pitchfork)
On hold for the time being

Updated Pitchfork Media link (odd that it changed in just the last few days). As for DNA, I see no harm in including it within the article. It adds one sentence to the article, which is not very long, and it relates to international reception. Please let me know if any additional concerns need to be addressed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then. Promote this article! Another wonderful album by the excellent Another Believer! =)

Thank you so much! --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.