Talk:Revelation (Third Day album)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs) 15:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC) The following is a preliminary review. I believe the issues can be readily fixed so that the article will easily pass.
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
On style the only thing that keeps me from passing it is the composition section. With the heavy use of quotes and mid-sentence citations the section ends up looking rather messy. Moving citations to the ends of sentences and paraphrasing more would resolve my only noteworthy concerns.
As far as neutrality, I think the composition section also has some problem in that it throws in several glowing comments when it should be focusing on the style and structure of the music. Words such as "haunting", "well-crafted", "smartly", and "impressive" should probably not be included in that section, even though they appear in quotes. I think you should keep that section focused on composition and leave words of praise from critics for the reception section.
On the reception section, I would like to see a little more of the problems reviewers have. Right now it mostly includes praise with one criticism, though I note this source in the article includes some more criticism. You could probably just include the critical comments from that source as well to sufficiently balance the section.
Given the amount of work done on this article, I imagine the above issues will not be too hard to fix so I am putting a final review on hold so the suggested changes can be made.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright, those comments make sense — I've removed most of those "glowing" comments and moved many of the references to the back of the sentence. I've also paraphrased a few bit. On the reviews, I added the concern listed on the JFH review. Toa Nidhiki05 18:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- That was a quick response. :) With those changes I think this easily meets Good Article status. You have a well-written and comprehensive summary in the lede, and that pretty much sums up how the rest of the article is handled. Everything seems to be verified with appropriate citations and is sufficiently balanced. So I will say this passes the criteria now. Overall, I think this is even pretty close to Featured Article quality, though I would suggest doing more paraphrasing as several sections rely heavily on quotes and you should also expand the awards subsection before trying an FA review.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)