Talk:Toil (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to take this review. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

On first pass, this looks strong. It's brief, but there's presumably not a lot of content and analysis out there on this. It's well-organized and appears to cover main aspects. Again, thanks for your work on it.

Quibbles to address:

"The song has been seen as symbol of the band's faith." Can we add a citation for this interpretation? Otherwise, it should probably be deleted as a tiny bit of original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done --Guerillero | My Talk 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Both the album and the single failed to chart, unlike Flatfoot 56's previous album, which peaked at number two on the Billboard Heatseekers Chart." -- this fact should appear in the body of the article if it's going to be in the lead, per WP:LEAD. Also, comparing it to the band's previous album seems like just a tiny bit of original research if no sources make this comparison. It would be better to just say "Both the album and the single failed to chart", I think, and offer a citation for that. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I changed this. Does it sound better? --Guerillero | My Talk 23:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I also made some copyedits for grammar and style as I went, including adding one inline citation that got omitted. Please take a look at my edits to make sure I didn't inadvertently introduce any error, and feel free to revert anything you disagree with! -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed or removed the dead links --Guerillero | My Talk 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Dead links are permissible under the GA criteria, but obviously it's better to have them fixed. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is clear; spotchecks show no copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	~~See note above about lead section. Also, a sentence on the album's blue-collar/Christian themes would be a useful addition to the lead, to better summarize the "Writing/Composition" section.~~
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).
	2c. it contains no original research.	~~See small points about this above.~~
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass