Talk:Sweet Sacrifice/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 00:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to be reviewing this. Probably will have the preliminary judging done by today or tomorrow. Toa Nidhiki05 00:58, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

• Prose seems to be of at least decent, passable quality. Most of the issues come from phrasing and lack of usage of commas. No noticeable grammatical errors, so good job there. Changes I would make are noted in bold. Keep
  • Change this sentence to "Upon its release, "Sweet Sacrifice" received mostly positive reviews by critics; many deemed the song as a highlight on the album and praised Lee's vocals, which some described as "haunting"."  Done
  • Although the song failed to chart as highly as' the band's previous singles, it appeared on the charts in Turkey and Germany, as well as the Billboard Hot Mainstream Rock Tracks chart.  Done
  • I would change the sentence "Lee confirmed that the song was inspired by the abusive relationship which was the inspiration of all the songs on the band's first album Fallen (2003)" to "Evanescence's lead singer Amy Lee wrote the song about the abusive relationship that inspired all of the songs on the group's debut record Fallen. Lee has noted, however, that the song comes from "a much stronger standpoint than Fallen. It's not saying, "I'm trapped in fear and somebody save me." It's saying, "Fear is only in our minds ... I'm not afraid anymore". I would add the sentence because I think it is very interesting and would draw in readers better, but it is not essential to include it. :)  Not done - I don't want to add sources in the lead and every citation needs a source.
  • "A music video for the song, directed by Paul R. Brown, was filmed in California between March 9 and March 10, 2007; It contained mostly live performances and was compared with the film The Cell."  Done
• A personal peeve of mine in this article is the addition of release years in parentheses behind albums, singles, and tours. While not against policy (to my knowledge), I find this distracting... Not essential to change, however.  Not done
• The only real issue with format is that right off the bat I notice the lede is too large - WP:LEDE dictates that the lede should only have three paragraphs if it has at least 15,000 characters, and this only has about 9,000. Shorten the lede to one or two paragraphs (it is easily large enough for two).  Done

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Sources are good, but I would suggest archiving the links to avoid link rot.

I don't have much time now to do this but I'll try tomorrow or on November 4.

• As annoying as it is, all direct quotes must be cited - even if they cut off mid-sentence. The 'reception' section in particular needs to have inline citations after each direct quote.  Done
• The article identifies the song as part of the 'rock' genre, but the infobox identifies it as 'alternative metal'. 'Rock' is the only one cited, so this could be a possible OR violation.

The source also says that it's an alternative metal, post-grunge and gothic metal song. And editors chose to write alternative metal in the infobox of every Evanescence song so that's why it states alternative metal.

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No issues here. Song is comprehensively covered.

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article is very neutral, good job.

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No issues here

4. 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 good here.

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   There are some minor concerns to be addressed, but this is a solid article for the most part. Alright, good job here. Passed. :)