Talk:Long Forgotten Songs: B-Sides & Covers 2000–2013

Long Forgotten Songs: B-Sides & Covers 2000–2013 has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: May 14, 2018. (Reviewed version).

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Long Forgotten Songs: B-Sides & Covers 2000–2013/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 08:45, 21 March 2018 (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.	Reword The album received generally favorable reviews, with critics praising the covers, and how many of the songs felt fully fleshed out despite being relegated to B-sides. Should this be an? Not sure. For example, "Lanterns" was a iTunes bonus
	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.
	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).
	2c. it contains no original research.	Although melodic hardcore is a subgenre of hardcore punk, since the source calls it melodic punk should we use that term instead?
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	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.

Famous Hobo and Kees08 Is this review still underway? Courcelles (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I kept putting this off (I let them know on their talk page). Regardless, finishing the review now. Kees08 (Talk) 02:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: some dead links, but those are explicitly allowed by the GA criteria. Just noting that I noticed them. Kees08 (Talk) 03:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Famous Hobo: Figured I would ping if you missed or did not get the talk page notice about this. Kees08 (Talk) 04:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kees08: Sorry, just saw your message. I believe I took care of your concerns. I tried to archive all the dead links, but one managed to get through without an archive link on any website. Famous Hobo (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I made a minor edit to the intro to help it flow. Otherwise, GA quality, well done once again. Kees08 (Talk) 06:30, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]