Talk:Sucker Punch (soundtrack)

Sucker Punch (soundtrack) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 16, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sucker Punch (soundtrack)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 10:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review
- No dead links found.
- found no edit wars.
- Will be referring to other soundtrack articles to see if this article need any improvement or not. ASHU^IND 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel the composition section can be expanded. Please work on it since it's only mentioning where the song is taken from and reception about that particular song is quoted. ASHU^IND 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Added more content to it. igordebraga ≠ 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it seems good enough. ASHU^IND 04:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Are there no certificates for this album? like platinum or gold? ASHU^IND 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No (chart runs are modest). igordebraga ≠ 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Analysis

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Not much concerns here. ASHU^IND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. ASHU^IND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
All such aspects have been covered. Some issues were there but were resolved. ASHU^IND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Fine here.
It is stable.
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):
All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHU^IND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Keep up the good quality of Article. Don't let it delisted.
Regards.
ASHU^IND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]