Talk:Sum 41/GA1
GA Review
[edit]Hello everyone, I have decided to do the GA review for this article. I have scanned the article from time to time and have found some things that need to be addressed before we go on.
There are several formatting errors including:There are several bolded words throughout the article that do not need to be bolded such as "DeeVeeDee", "Underclass Hero", and a second "Sum 41". Keep in mind albums and DVDs should be italicized and song names should contain quotations around them.
DoneReferences are not formatted correctly in two ways:
The reference must come straight after the period. It must not contain a space after or be before the period. DoneThe {{Cite}} template is not used. Citations need to include titles, authors, dates and other information found in the template. A quick way to do this is you can turn on a button in your preferences where you can quickly enter in all the information and a citation is then provided for you. You may also go to this website as well. Correctly formatted citations is a must. Done
- Another aspect that needs to be addressed is the lead section. Please look at other GA bands for examples such as Green Day. It needs to be long enough paragraph-wise to summarize the subject and it needs to explain why the subject is notable such as certain awards they have won or their charting positions. Again look at other articles for examples. All sales numbers and awards should have references as well. There are also capitalization problems in the lead such as the "f" in "Far" and the "p" in "Platinum" should be lower cased. Not all the numbers of studio albums and EPs need to be listed but if you are listing smaller numbers like that they should be spelt out fully.
- Look at the Underclass Hero section and remove insignificant information. There are one sentence paragraphs, either find a way to combine or expand those with another paragraph or remove them. This section could also use some more citations. Especially where it says a press release was made. That needs to have a citation to it.
The Internet Videos section also could use some more citations towards the end of the first paragraph. This also contains one sentence paragraphs. Look to either expand, combine, or remove if insignificant. DoneThere are a few things that need citations, I will mark these things for you so you can find things on them. Remember to correctly format them. Everything must be verifiable. Done
Those are some things you can work on for right now. If there are any questions please be sure to ask and I will help as best I can. Orfen T • C 04:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've worked on formatting the references; got about 3/4 of them; found sources for the things needing them; removed stuff i couldn't find sources for. Now i need some help expanding the lead.- -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright I see some pretty good work so far. I have marked out the things that are completed. The stuff not marked out yet still needs to be done. Remember to correctly place all the references as well. There are still quite a few references that aren't placed after the period or there is a space after the period.
- For the lead section read WP:LEAD for more information on the lead section. Again, look at Green Day for some ideas. Their lead contains some sales numbers for some albums and some awards they have won or been nominated for. You could contain some charting history. Those are just some ideas. I probably wouldn't keep the numbers saying how much albums or EPs or other works they made. It's rather insignificant but rather touch on the more important aspects of their career and summarize it in the lead.
- Also as another thing that needs to be done there are a couple sentences in parenthesis. They are unneeded and should be implemented into the paragraphs some other way.
- Good work so far but more work needs to be done. Orfen T • C 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Finished the references; they should be all good now. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've also worked on expanding the lead; listing the awards they've been nominated for. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Finished the references; they should be all good now. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Good work so far but more work needs to be done. Orfen T • C 17:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, very good so far. Everything is formatted correctly but now the article needs some writing work. The lead already looks better but it still needs some work. I wouldn't mention how they got their name, that's already mentioned in the next section. I'd also just completely remove this sentence: "Since then, the band has released four studio albums, one live album, five DVDs, one Demo tape, four EPs, & 17 singles." It's unnecessary and you should instead touch on their most important work with Island Records. Which record sold the most? Which record had the most acclaim? Which record sparked their popularity? That is the stuff that needs to be addressed in the lead section. There are still some more things that need to be done besides the lead section. There are a couple sections you might be able to add to make the article cover all aspects of the topic. Here are some ideas for a couple other sections:
- Is there any criticism of the band or its music? This is not mandatory if there isn't any but I would be surprised if there isn't any.
- I'd suggest creating a related projects section summarizing the band's other projects such as their side projects. Maybe remove the internet videos section and combine it with the related projects section.
- Alright, very good so far. Everything is formatted correctly but now the article needs some writing work. The lead already looks better but it still needs some work. I wouldn't mention how they got their name, that's already mentioned in the next section. I'd also just completely remove this sentence: "Since then, the band has released four studio albums, one live album, five DVDs, one Demo tape, four EPs, & 17 singles." It's unnecessary and you should instead touch on their most important work with Island Records. Which record sold the most? Which record had the most acclaim? Which record sparked their popularity? That is the stuff that needs to be addressed in the lead section. There are still some more things that need to be done besides the lead section. There are a couple sections you might be able to add to make the article cover all aspects of the topic. Here are some ideas for a couple other sections:
- Also, the Chuck and Underclass Hero sections have some things that still need to be worked on. The Chuck section has a couple one sentence paragraphs. Those need to be combined with the other paragraphs or expanded. The Underclass Hero section has some pretty short paragraphs towards the end of it. Those need to be combined or expanded. You could actually put the whole thing about Cone interviewing Slash in the related projects section and then remove it from Underclass Hero. You could also combine all information about the singles/releases in the Underclass Hero section (March of the Dogs, Underclass Hero, Walking Disaster, With Me). That way the paragraphs won't be as short and all related information will be together. It's all right next to each other anyway.
- That's all I have for now, good work. Just work on the lead, adding the related projects section, and then work on the Chuck and Underclass Hero section. The article is on its way. Orfen T • C 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've worked on expanding the lead to the best of my ability, also cleaned up the 1 sentence paragraphs and made a new section that combines collaborations and internet videos. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 19:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's all I have for now, good work. Just work on the lead, adding the related projects section, and then work on the Chuck and Underclass Hero section. The article is on its way. Orfen T • C 15:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- You've done really well with the rest of the article but the collaboration section now has a lot of one sentence paragraphs. That must be addressed. Also the lead could use a little work still. It could probably flow a little better. Perhaps ask someone who has a nice amount of experience writing to look through it for you. The rest of the article is looking good though. The musical style section needs a little more work though. It needs more citations. There can't be original research when saying what a band sounds like. That must be sourced. Other than that it looks pretty good. Orfen T • C 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I've worked a bit more on the lead; found a couple more sources for the musical styles section; reworked the collaboration section to remove one sentence paragraphs.. now what? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 21:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- You've done really well with the rest of the article but the collaboration section now has a lot of one sentence paragraphs. That must be addressed. Also the lead could use a little work still. It could probably flow a little better. Perhaps ask someone who has a nice amount of experience writing to look through it for you. The rest of the article is looking good though. The musical style section needs a little more work though. It needs more citations. There can't be original research when saying what a band sounds like. That must be sourced. Other than that it looks pretty good. Orfen T • C 22:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright I have done some formatting a capitalization changes and notice you need a couple more citations for the lead. I have looked through it all thoroughly now and there are a couple citations that need changing. References 7, 10, 11, 27, and 34 all need to be changed. They are either message board posts or a Myspace. Perhaps look for MTV articles or another website because you're using them for TRL information and such and I'm sure you'd be able to find that information elsewhere. Reference 44 is also rather questionable. How reliable is the biography? What are his affiliations with the band? Where did the information come from? That all needs to be answered to know if the source is reliable. I also added two more places that need citations in the style and influence section. Orfen T • C 01:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the disputed subgenres is going to have to go. Look on a website such as allmusic for the band and then put the genres found there in the infobox. All genres need to be sourced. Also even if the genre is "disputed" if it is sourced it will have to be included due to no original research. Orfen T • C 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Today i found some images on flickr that can be used on wikipedia; so there in there now. Is this process of reviewing over yet? I don't really see what else i can do to make the article any better. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also, the disputed subgenres is going to have to go. Look on a website such as allmusic for the band and then put the genres found there in the infobox. All genres need to be sourced. Also even if the genre is "disputed" if it is sourced it will have to be included due to no original research. Orfen T • C 01:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Every picture in the article still needs a fair use rationale. Orfen T • C 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Are you sure they don't have them? do they need a fair use if the image is Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0? There were old images in the article that were removed because they were all copvio's but the ones in there now i uploaded using a flickr bot. What exactly do i need to do to them? - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Every picture in the article still needs a fair use rationale. Orfen T • C 23:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, my mistake then. I see that they are under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. Taking another look over everything while the forum citations were removed that still leaves some content unsourced. Such as: "...which is referred to by fans as Rock Out with Your Cock Out." That one needs to be sourced. I don't see anything else though. If you are going to attribute a name to the demo tapes then the name has to be sourced. Orfen T • C 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Even though I know it's true (since i'm a fan and me and other fans refer to it as that), i'm removing the ROWYCO from the article; becuase i can't find a reliable source for it. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I passed the article. Good job. Orfen T • C 21:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Even though I know it's true (since i'm a fan and me and other fans refer to it as that), i'm removing the ROWYCO from the article; becuase i can't find a reliable source for it. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 20:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, my mistake then. I see that they are under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0 license. Taking another look over everything while the forum citations were removed that still leaves some content unsourced. Such as: "...which is referred to by fans as Rock Out with Your Cock Out." That one needs to be sourced. I don't see anything else though. If you are going to attribute a name to the demo tapes then the name has to be sourced. Orfen T • C 02:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)