Talk:Too Much Too Soon (album)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey Dan, I'll be glad to take this review. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
This looks quite good on first pass, and so far, essentially ready for promotion. One small action point:
- "^ Christgau, p. 279" -- needs year to clarify which source this is from.
| 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 good; see note below on copyright check |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
| 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. | |
| 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. | Does a good job presenting a range of viewpoints. |
|
|
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 as GA |
1a note: Some sentences are rather superficial rewrites of their sources, mirroring both specific language and structure more than I'm comfortable with. For example,
- Article: The album's front cover shows the band in a mock live performance and avoids the drag style of their debut's cover. For shock value, Thunders held a doll in his arm as if to strike it against his guitar
- Source: The front cover pic has the band in a mock live shot in far less of the drag style than their previous album. For full shock value, Thunders has a doll by the arm, as if he's about to use it to strike his guitar.
If there was a full paragraph like the above, it would probably be a fail for excessive close paraphrasing. But since no source seems to be used for anything longer than this example, and the material is at least superficially paraphrased, I don't think that it's extensive enough that it could be considered a copyright violation. The bottom line is that I'd recommend that some of this be revisited and rewritten, but it also appears to me within the GA criteria. -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)