Talk:Sarcófago/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hey there, I'm GARDEN and I'll be reviewing this for you. Go easy on me though, I'm pretty new to this process.

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
No problems, although you might want to use less breaks with headers for an easier flow.
Could you give an example of a section that could use less breaks with headers? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, try combining two or more sections at a time for two or more albums? GARDEN 13:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
I'm going to have to assume the book sources are correct and that the Portuguese websites are reliable. I'm sure they are though, just need a little confirmation.
Yes, the Portuguese sources are reliable... They are Brazil's biggest rock/metal magazines. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, I'm not from Brazil, so... :P GARDEN 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the vote of confidence ;) Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It's very short for a band article. Is this due to a lack of sources or because they simply did not do anything?
Sarcófago is considered a "cult" band - very influential, but relatively few people know them. A "musician's band", so to speak. Although readily acknowledged by a reputed source such as Terrorizer, interviews and articles on the band in English are rare. Even the Portuguese sources took some amount of effort to acquire - I had to dig up some rare, out-of-print rock magazines published 10-15 years ago for their interviews, purchasing them on Mercado Livre, a latin american online auction site. Coupled with that, extreme metal bands generally don't sell much, which might have limited the interest of the mainstream press to cover them. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. GARDEN 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Fine here.
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
And here.
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):
Loads of fair-use here - any chance you could cut down on this, or find some free-use?
That's a tricky issue. All of the images I took are promo pictures available on the Cogumelo Records' Sarcófago page [1]. I could in touch with the record company - I don't think they would mind if I user their images - but I don't know how long would it take them to answer me. I could also could try to get in touch with the original photographers, but that might take even longer... What do you suggest? Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably remove them. If you remove the images the article would not be worse. Remember that by letting you use them they must give up much of the rights to them, so they'll likely be less than happy to. GARDEN 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's bad... I had just e-mailed them on the issue. I used a free-image research tool provided by Wikipedia (I don't recall it's name), and the results yielded only one image, available on Sarcófago's Finnish Wikipedia site. I tried to incorporate it on the article, but for some reason I couldn't use it here. Musicaindustrial (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright if you've already emailed them, I just don't think they'll agree to it. The second point is a bit odd... I don't know what's going on there... GARDEN 14:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Some issues outstanding, but it's a semi-decent job so far.
Pass/Fail:
Right, after removing the unneeded fair use I think this is okay to pass. Well done! GARDEN 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Why are there so many sources cited in the lead section? This should be a summary of the article, and therefore should not have any citations. Anything that's in the lead should also be in the main part of the article in more detail and sourced there. Tim meh ! 21:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, there's a guideline on this somewhere... MOS:LEAD maybe? GARDEN 08:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sources in the lead section. Musicaindustrial (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. GARDEN 13:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]