Talk:People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. One of my favourite albums. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Can the lead be expanded a little bit? Perhaps with a quote from the legacy section?
Nice job with what's there, though.

Recording

Should be a comma after "Q-Tip later commented".
"Although claiming" should be "Although claiming that".
"Q-Tip was the only Tribe Called Quest member present". Change this to either "Q-Tip was the only group member" or "the only member of A Tribe Called Quest", I'm not sure if we should be taking the "A" off the name.
Should be a comma after "Group member Phife Dawg later admitted" as well.

Critical reception

The third paragraph seems more appropriate for the "Legacy" section, seeing it appears to consist entirely of retrospective reviews.
Maybe link to here when mentioning the perfect review from The Source. Also, maybe change "perfect" to "five-mic", considering the honour is pretty well-known in the hip-hop community.
Good paraphrasing.

Legacy and influence

Should probably just be called "Legacy", to be consistent with other music good articles.
One instance of "Instinctive" is not capitalised and should be.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Wish there was more pictures, but no biggie.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Conclusion

Looking good. I'd just like to see a little bit of work on the lead and some minor prose issues and then this should be good. For now I'm putting it on hold. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing. I've made the requested changes (however, I added a "Retrospect" heading above the third paragraph in reception). Please let me know if there's anything else. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, everything looks great now. Will be happy to ✓ Pass this. Great to see this quality album having a quality Wikipedia page. Congratulations! StewdioMACK (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awsome. Thanks so much. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]