Talk:The Showcase (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 07:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've waited long enough. Regretfully, it does not look good to me at a first glance and I think it will likely have to be failed, but I'll have my final verdict tomorrow (it's 2AM here and I'm going to bed). dannymusiceditor ^oops 07:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: 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):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

To start with:

There is not nearly enough coverage in this article. You fail to provide any type of critical reception, and you should never have a miscallaneous collection of "information" grouped together as one section; please see MOS:LAYOUT for more on this.

Lead:

The word you are looking for is "preceding", not "preluding".
A stylization in all caps should only be added when several mainstream publications are referring to it as such. Otherwise, it's just like another ordinary wordmark. Remove it. In any case, it would need to be bolded as well.

"Information":

Again with "preceding", not "preluding". I see this is almost copy-pasted from the lead, please do better than that.
"Working with the album's concept of a showcase, the group decided on the track listing's order based on how they would perform them live."....you basically say this again, also unsourced later on, in "background and composition". Move this version of the information chunk to the background section.
The very same thing happens with the next paragraph.
After moving those two chunks, what's left looks like a decent section on the album's release, so just retitle it "release" and move it down past the Background/composition.

Hiroki

You focus way too much on the departure of Hiroki, and it's not part of the album, this is more relevant on the bad's page. Maybe you should keep some of it, but thqat's the purpose of "background", really. "background" isn't just for the album itself, it's for what was happening in the band and what affected them up to the release of the album. Not to mention that the quotes also need directly cited, even if the citations in the article somewhere do have these quotes.

Others

Charts: Need citations.

Music videos should not have a dedicated section, they can be covered in "release".

That is all I have to say. It falls quite short of the mark. Please fix these and expand on information surrounding the album in general, and you can contact me for a re-review. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:26, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]