Talk:Lupe Fiasco/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all lucky people, I will be reviewing the article for GA. Please bear with me. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 14:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems in pretty good shape Basilisk. I'm impressed. I will just do some minor copyedits as I go. Meanwhile, check the tool box for the link rots and dabs. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:49, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I was wrong. We are in trouble. So many DEAD links!!! This is crossing the threshold for quick-fail. I will give you just one day to sort through these, else its a quick fail for the article. Its a shame that you didn't check them before nominating. I'm disappointed. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry, I thought that I checked them thoroughly before, I am not really sure what happened. I have fixed them. Basilisk4u (talk) 02:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still unformatted sources, redirect links, a number of unreliable sources, incomplete formatting missing accessdates etc, coupled with the dab links. I'm sorry Basilisk, but this seems really underprepared. As I said, a basic look gives me that you don't have problem with the prose, but its the other parts like MoS, references and verification which is seriously lacking. I'm sorry, but I have to fail this GA at present. If you want, I can help you to sort through all these issues, and would love t ose you re-nominate it for GA. But the work that needs to be done is too vast for the scope of a GAR. I hope you understand and not get disheartened. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its okay. I am pretty new to nominating articles and I have a lot that I still need to learn. It would be awesome if you helped me with these issues, if you are not too busy sometime, could you help me with the references? I actually appreciate that you didn't just pass it, because it shows that you are dedicated to actually making sure it is of good quality. Thank you! Basilisk4u (talk) 05:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stumbled here now that Lasers has been released. Considering that Lasers has been released, most of the Lasers section on this page probably deserves to be moved to the album page. I'm inclined to cut the long genealogy of singles, leaks, delays, etc. as far as this page is concerned. Maybe condense it to: 2009-2011, Lupe Fiasco and Atlantic Records had prolonged difficulties releasing the album because . . . Thoughts? JGorton (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]