Talk:The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will be reviewing this article shortly, I do have an exam this Friday so I probably won't have the review finished until the weekend =) (I may have a pre-review done though)--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually truly sorry but I have to quick fail this article.

1. Your references are not formatted properly

Uh, what do you mean? It doesn't have to be in a cite template, if that's what you mean… Check Wikipedia:Citing sources… CrowzRSA 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. A lot of MOS problems especially with the Contents section

Not sure where in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body it says that it goes against MOS… CrowzRSA 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. You sight Reference 21 for the chart positions while the reference is not from the official source

That really doesn't matter, as long as the reference is reliable… CrowzRSA 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. You could have created a Commercial Reception section to add more information to the article.

Commercial reception can be found in the "Chart performance"… There is not to much more content that can go into the Reception section that is available on the web, or in whatever source… CrowzRSA 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the list goes on......

Once again I am sorry, I don't like to quick fail article but this article needs a lot of work.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I recommend you look at articles such as Celebration: The Video Collection for a good example on these types of articles.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've written several GA's in this category (War at the Warfield, Soundtrack to the Apocalypse) which all seemed to pass… But whatever… CrowzRSA 01:33, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the MOS part I meant, that the the subsection, Contents, is should be listed like a normal CD. Also, it does matter the what site, is has to be from the official charts company. Just look at,Celebration: The Video Collection, all the sources are from the official charts. This is especially true for certifications, use the official company that certified it. The commercial reception could add an additional info if I can be found, but if you can't find anything that's fine. Also other problems are in the certifications where it says 2x when it should be 2× or saying the US when it should say United States. It also includes redundant sentences like, "The first photo of all the members of the four bands (except for Slayer's Jeff Hanneman) in a room together, taken on Tuesday, June 15, 2010." So I still believe that this is not ready for GA, sorry if you disagree.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I also see citations in the lead which yet again is not supposed to be there.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References ARE aloud in the lead, per WP:LEADCITE. For the "official site" argument, there are a ton of GA's and FA's which site Blabbermouth, Allmusic, and various other cites for chart positions, despite the cites being non-official (Still Reigning, Christ Illusion, The Chronic, It Was a Good Day). Saying US is fine, per WP:ABBR. And I JUST fixed the 2×, as you insisted. And anything else redundant can be easily fixed. I think you're basing this review using other article's prose, when it should be reviewed using the Good article criteria. CrowzRSA 01:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for showing me this, I still disagree with citing Blabbermouth for positions though, I'll ask some other users, what they think. ANd after, if they agree with you, re-nominate the article and I'll create a full review. BTW what about the Contents section?--Blackjacks101 (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you asked I'd say that if fails Criteria 1, 2 and 3 for GA status. For Criteria 1, there are a grammer problems and MOS problems. For Criteria 2 it is not verifiable because of the statements above. And 3 that I don't believe it contains all the information that it could, I think the Commercial Reception is a very important section to be included as it tells the reader how it fluctuated in the charts.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 12:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the problems you listed could be fixed pretty easily, it would be humane to put it on hold. CrowzRSA 19:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say they are simple fixes....just the fact that you nominated the article with this many errors makes it a candidate for a quick fail if you look at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Criteria 1 on the first things to look for is if The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. When I looked over it, it did fail since many charts we improperly sourced, so as you can read later on in that section, If the article has any of the above problems, it can simply be failed without going through the on hold process of improvement based on specific issues. Sorry, I seriously don't enjoy failing articles.--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]