Talk:The Fray/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: User:Esprit15d, User:TenPoundHammer

Good article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of February 11, 2010, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Lead looks nice, although this sentence is too subjective to be there: "The Fray is notable for using a piano as the lead instrument in their music, instead of the guitar, thus setting them apart from most other rock bands." The second paragraph under Early history doesn't relate to the band's early history. It should be moved to a more relevant section. There is no need to state when the band announced they would release a single. Just state when the single was released and the subsequent commercial, critical and media response. A double dash (--) or a mdash (—) should be used between clauses. The ndash (-) should NOT be used. I won't fail for this, but why not fix it now before it goes to FA. (example: "...the album - which was released on February 3, 2009 - debuted.." This sentence "...directed by Rod Blackhurst was sold with.." should probably read "directed by Rod Blackhurst was included with...". The first three paragraphs under The Fray (2009 - present) should be combined. It wouldn't hurt to find a better way to consolidate or unify the other disparate paragraphs under that subheading. The article is not poorly written, but I see some nitpickety missing commas, redundant pronouns, little things that a solid copyedit would fix. WP:COPYEDITORS might be able to help in this regard.

2. Factually accurate?: Inline citations should always come AFTER punctuation. I'm also not thrilled about the blogs used as reference, which should be avoided if possible. I will not fail on this however. Also, the citation formatting is terrible. Check WP:CITET for suggestions on how to format them correctly. This sentence needs a reference, preferably with the source mentioned in the sentence: "His use of falsetto also increased on the second album."

Im slowly working through the references to fix and add all relevant info to them. It will take a while since there are so many references. All help would be appreciated.Mephiston999 (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3. Broad in coverage?: Pass

4. Neutral point of view?: Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass

The article is solid, but not tight. It is evident a lot of work has gone into it, and it is coming together. The Discograhy section looks really good.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. Esprit15d • talk • contribs 16:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the statement "notable for using a piano...." to The Fray's use of the piano as the lead instrument in their music has led....". Also, I've split "Early history" to two separate section. I've removed the ndash (-). Also combined the many lines of the "2009-present" section to two sizable paragraphs. Any suggestion to improve the article would be helpful indeed Prince Imrahil (talk) 09:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new reviewer is needed as the original one has stopped editing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original reviewer has suddenly quit editing, so I'll take over. Here are the points I noted.

Infobox

Removed Sony Music, as there's no need to list both the label (which is Epic) and its parent company. Sony Music is not a label. Also made it just say "Epic" to match recommended formatting of infobox.
Are there no associated acts that could be listed?

Source quality

You can't cite an Amazon review!
Removed metrolyrics and what appeared to be a wiki as sources from the intro.
Not sure about the use of a YouTube interview as a ref.
There was another YouTube link that didn't look reliable, so I removed it.
Removed Fray Away the Edges, an acknowledged fansite.
Removed TV.com, which is user submitted.
Removed 100 Best Everything.com, which looked unreliable.
Removed IMDb.
Removed a few unreliable looking sources under Songwriting (one was a user submitted guitar-tab website).

Citations

Ideally, the intro should not have citations in it, since it summarizes points that will be addressed later on in the article.
Second paragraph of "Formation" is unsourced.
Most of The Fray (2008-2009) section is unsourced.
Found a few unsourced statements throughout, which I tagged with [citation needed].
Two of the three sources under Awards and Nominations were unreliable (a lyrics directory and Rock on the Net, the latter of which is known for hosting the unusable ARC Top 40 chart).

Prose and MOS

Changed all instances of "sophomore album" to "second album" to avoid colloquialism.
Removed "Formation (2002)" subheader under "History." Pretty sure MOS disallows a header followed instantly by a subheader.
Removed some "however"s.
The band is a singular entity, and should be referred to as an "it" throughout. Many times, "they" is used instead.
Many overlinks: The names of the Billboard charts, for example, should be linked only the first time they occur.

Comprehensive coverage

At what point did the band abandon its Christian sound? The sources don't make it clear.
I see almost no reviews sourced. One important part of an artist's biography is what the critics thought. I would recommend looking at reviews from Billboard, Rolling Stone, Allmusic, Entertainment Weekly, etc. for starters.

Overall, the article is very messy and has large stretches of unsourced material, and would need a great deal more work to meet GA standards. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]