Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gramophone record

Gramophone record

Review commentary

"Brilliant prose", no original author, message left at Albums. Sandy 14:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An old FA which seems to be some way off the current FA standard. This article has no inline citations, it seems to have a problem with original research, and it has 3 maintenance templates affixed to it. --kingboyk 14:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Insufficient inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 18:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment External jumps, and a rambling table of contents: an indication of lack of organization in the article's growth over the years. Sandy 00:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a image used under fair use without rationale, and another image is marked as both copyrighted and public domain. Pagra shtak 02:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are in-line citations, OR, tight focus, images. Joelito (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Insufficient inline citations (1. c. violation). LuciferMorgan 00:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Some citations converted during review, and external jumps removed. The article has multiple tags, needs cleanup, lacks sufficient inline citations, and appears to have some original research, evidenced by uncited weasle words (example, "The "warmer" sound of analog records is generally believed on both sides of the argument to be an artifact of dynamic harmonics. It is thought by supporters of digital audio that the fans of vinyl got so used to it they think it is actually more "faithful" to the real sound. Audiophiles believe lots of harmonics are necessary for good sound, especially of music."). Sandy (Talk) 16:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]