Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to do a review of this. First things that leap out are the lead is probably to short per WP:MOSLEAD, there's a lengthy paragraph in "Post-split" without any references, and there aren't many images - I'd have thought the 2007 reunion would have least thrown up a few fan shots, with one or two being nice enough to licence as CC-BY-SA. Still, you can only use what you have. More later.....

Okay, specific comments, running from top to bottom are :

The lead is a bit short. Other things that could go in are brief mentions of the albums, notable former members (particularly Gillespie) and what happened during their hiatus.

Maybe worth mentioning their first gig resulted in a punch up?

According to the Penny Black article, Gillespie was only a temporary replacement - worth adding?

File:Jesus And Mary Chain Never Understand.ogg is tagged as requiring attention, and the description of it requires a citation, otherwise it sounds like original research

The sentence on the Peel sessions doesn't scan quite right. Maybe change to "Following an earlier session for John Peel at the end of 1984, they were invited back for a second session in February 1985)" - also, do you have a citation for this?

Semicolon following "Phil Spector" probably wants to be a full stop.

"On returning to the UK they toured the UK" probably wants to be "On returning to the UK they started a tour there"

Reviews of Darklands has a "citation needed" tagged

Reception of Automatic "not received quite as well as its predecessors" needs a citation

Douglas Hart's post Mary Chain career needs a citation

Hope Sandoval performing on "Perfume" can also be cited to reference #41

Jim being drunk at the House of Blues gig in 1999 has a "citation needed", and being a negative or potentially defamatory comment about a living person requires attention.

The Independent interview describing the split can probably be found online somewhere and linked to.

First whole paragraph in "Post-split" is unreferenced - I have tagged it as such so hopefully people will come to the rescue quickly

Reference #45 is a dead link

"a new album by the band is in the works" probably wants to read "a new album by the band was in the works" - unless it's still work in progress after 4 years!

The Guitar Geek reference looks like an unreliable source. I'd get rid of this entire section

Would it be worth adding a paragraph of bands they influenced? If they're as legendary as claimed, it shouldn't be hard to ferret out a couple of references saying this.

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

Taking the above comments into account, I can summarise them as follows :

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
See comments about lead
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
As noted above, I've had to add a refimprove tag to one section, plus there are several other places that either tagged as requiring a citation or I think need one. Most of the sources seem to be reliable, apart from Guitar Geek and the dead link
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
As noted in the above comments, I think there's a few things that should be added in order for the article to be comprehensive
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Nothing particularly unstable seems to have occurred in the past year from a cursory look at the history and the talk page
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):
As mentioned above, the audio sample has a "requires attention" comment. As seen at the bottom of the article, Commons has a couple of free photos of the Reid brothers which would work well added in mid-points in the article. While a Good Article doesn't require photos, I think we can do more in this area.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Quite a bit of work to do to get this to GA status, but hopefully doable within a week, so I'm going to put this on hold pending the above suggestions. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the past week, the only evidence of work has been removing the "Equipment" section, and the nominator has not directly addressed any issues listed here. I regret, therefore, I'm going to have to fail this. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]