Talk:The Marrow of a Bone/GA1

GA Review

Hey there, thanks for your work so far on the article. At the moment, it doesn't quite meet GA standards, but I'm going to put it on hold for a week to see if it can be improved. If not, no harm not, you can just renominate it when ready.

There are some fairly significant issues relating to depth. For instance, there's very little information on how the album was produced, what went into it, stuff like that. There's also very little on reception. These sections are crucial to ensuring that all significant aspects of the album are covered. The songs section seems a bit long and convoluted, it probably says more than is necessary about each one.

Furthermore, the sources need work... quite a few of them don't appear to be reliable. Please review WP:V to ensure the sources can be trusted.

Anyways, I'll put this on hold for a week, but if you think it's gonna take longer to get it to GA standards (plenty of good examples to work towards at WP:GA#Music), just give me a yell. Good luck, giggy _(:O) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've put a fair amount of work into the article. All sources within the article are either subpages of the official site, interviews with the band themselves, or professional reviews. The depth is contestable, and I would understand if it fails in that area. The production section may be in need of some further improvement, but it gets a little disorienting working on the same article for so long. I've cut out the section with the song-by-song, hierarchical style, in favor of a general "Style" section. This still uses a rough song-by-song pattern, but I've tried to use more general statements. If this article fails the GA nomination, that is completely okay, as this review has helped the article grow in quality in any case. Thanks! --Jacob ^Talk 00:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both album covers are HUGE (300x300 px is standard), and I think the second is unnecessary. See: WP:NFCC #8, it does not significantly add to the article, and the purpose of identification is achieved by the main cover itself. That Release history table is completely trivial information; no useful understanding can be conveyed by a random collection of release dates. I say remove it. indopug (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both done! --Jacob ^Talk 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any update on the status of this review? Thanks! --Jacob ^Talk 22:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The article generally looks OK, but the reception section is really short. An article I've been working on recently is Tea & Sympathy; I think you could take some pointers from the reception section there to help with this article. Good luck. —Giggy 07:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]