Talk:Pavement (band)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *^YES! 11:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at this later. SilkTork *^YES! 11:46, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Stable. There have been some reverts, but they have been minor. SilkTork *^YES! 11:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prose conveys some meaning, though it is not always clear what is happening, and there is an impression of a series of disconected statements rather than an organised flow. Some sentences are unclear - "... Gary Young's eccentric behaviour included ... running around the venue and stage while the rest of the band was playing and drunkenly falling off his drum stool." Who is falling off the drum stool - Young or the band? "However, after just one tour and a handful of recording sessions, when it became apparent Fawkes and Malkmus did not get along well, Fawkes was soon ousted and Young reinstalled." How it is "soon" when they have done a tour and recording sessions? These are just examples. The article needs careful copyediting. SilkTork *^YES! 12:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead needs building per WP:Lead. It needs to reflect all the content of the main body - enough to be able to stand alone as a mini article. SilkTork *^YES! 12:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reference section, though a number of contentious statements are unsourced. There appears to be editorial opinion unsupported by reliable sources. SilkTork *^YES! 12:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image is fine. SilkTork *^YES! 12:10, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of a history of the band, but there is no section on popular or critical response, nor on musicianship. Articles on bands can be more difficult to write than it first appears, and they are much harder to pass through GA criteria than an article on an album by the band. This article appears to be very much in the early stages of collaborative collecting of fact and opinion, and really needs an individual or group of people to take charge of the material, source the statements, remove the opinion, and build sections on critical response to the band.

I feel the article is quite a way from GA status, and needs cleaning up. I will put it on hold for seven days to see what people do. If there has been positive development I will keep it open a bit longer. But if there has been little or no development then I will close as fail. SilkTork *^YES! 12:22, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors, nominator and WikiProjects have been informed, but there has been no response at all. This will be closed as a fail tomorrow unless either substantial improvements are made, or I am contacted with a reasonable proposla for keeping the review open. SilkTork *^YES! 13:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as a fail. SilkTork *^YES! 00:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]