Talk:Timmy and the Lords of the Underworld/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: MarioSoulTruthFan (talk · contribs) 17:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you know but there are six good article criteria, which articles must obey in order to become GA. The article you nominated is nowhere close to it.
- Lets begin to take a closer look to the infobox the genres, the formats are not sourced anywhere in the body of the article, nor the B-side nor the released date
- It is well written enough, but is no surprise when it complitly fails the criteria: "Broad in its coverage" as the background section, for example, has one sentece. The reception is formated in bulllet points and not text.
- The personnel list is not well formated, as according to the guidelenes first comes the personnel and the the credits.
- You also fail to provide a source to the tracks
- Despite containing a list of all references they are not presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; as there is a huge confsuion with YMD and DMY dates, missing dates, authors, works and/or publisheres, titles and so on. There are non-reliable sources such as Discogs and Rate Your Music and I'm not sure why Music Brainz is on the external links.
- It can't addresses the main aspects of the topic; as once again it doesn't have enough information as it is present
- The information is quite confusing as in the recpetion there is a mention of an album is this is a song. You copied and past the Spin source.
- Stubs can't be GA's according to the criteria.
To sum up, after all the facts I presented you can see you failed most of the criteria. First get in touch with it, Wikipedia:Good article criteria, secondly take a look at other GA and FA articles as there are plenty of them. Please don't nominate this or any other article in this shap, again. As of right now, you can't address all these issues within the usual time of a week or even a month (it is quite impossible) as to bring this article to the aforementioned status it will require a lot of research on the web, books and other sources you can get your hands on, as well as remove unreliable sources, get a good grasp of the GA criteria, re-write everyhting, fact check twice. I believe I have justified myself regarding the fail of this article. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)