Talk:They Might Be Giants/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Astrocog (talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article in the next few days. Please be patient. AstroCog (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about the wait. I will get to this soon. I had a really hectic past week. AstroCog (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

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

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   The writing doesn't suffer from grammar and spelling mistakes, but the layout and presentation of the article is not up to GA status. The article reads more like a trivia, presented in a proseline format. To be a good article, it should look less like a list and more like a coherent narrative. Near the end, there's a mix between lists and tables that is visually unattractive. The individual subsections are a mess. The "Podcasting,..." section could be rewritten into a few more separate sections.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   This is where the article suffers most. Throughout the article, large chunks of information are unreferenced, and possible original research. Some of the information comes from dubious sources, such as BBS postings. There's a lot of other references that are just news articles supporting various trivia. There was an entire documentary film about TMBG that is not used as a reference here, which to me is telling.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Not much focus here. Like I said, the article suffers from overuse of trivia. TMBG's 2nd career as writer's of children's and educational music is relegated to a messy section near the end. Their music videos, especially from their early years, are deserving of a separate section, not just a list.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Seems pretty neutral, though I don't see much in the way of negative criticism here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Stable.

6. 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):

   There are images here, albeit poor quality ones. I'm surprised at the poor quality, actually.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This article is not even close to GA status, and I think the editors and main contributers should buckle down and spend a fair amount of time reworking this, and then renominate in the future. I think the amount of improvements necessary to get this up to GA status are more than can be addressed in 7 days, so I'm going to fail this now. I note that the GA nominator is not a major contributer and this may have been a "drive-by" nomination.