Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Fame Monster/1

The Fame Monster

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Consensus for delisting. Forged sources may also be a concern. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The prose in this article is really quite horrible, and I don't believe this passes criterion 1 of GACR. On top of poor grammar throughout, the article also suffers from overquotation, raising copyright issues. The problems are large-scale and article-wide. Examples include, but are not limited to (as of this writing):

Initially planned solely as a deluxe reissue of The Fame, it was later decided that the release's eight new tracks would also be released as a standalone EP in some territories, as Gaga thought the re-release was too expensive and that the albums were each conceptually different, describing them as yin and yang. – VERY long sentence.
The cover artwork was done by Hedi Slimane – "done"? Very vague language is not encyclopedic.
The artwork was originally declined by her record company, however, Gaga convinced them to go through with it – "go through" is informal, unencyclopedic language.
"Dance in the Dark" was only released as a single in select territories, but received ... and receiving ... – grammatically incorrect
It was nominated in a total of six categories at the 53rd Annual Grammy Awards including Gaga's second consecutive Album of the Year nomination, ultimately winning for Best Pop Vocal Album. – poorly written sentence
According to her, she felt a dichotomy within herself – very poorly written sentence

I'm not super familiar with the reassessment process, so I have opened this as a community reassessment. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:02, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Legolas2186, who was the main contributor at the time this was listed as a GA, has been indefinitely blocked for outstanding falsification of sources (see here). Thus, GACR #2 is also potentially an issue. –Chase (talk / contribs) 03:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delist in addition to the above concerns, this goes into excessive detail about performances, and some refs aren't correctly formatted. This really needs a copyedit and is not up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~Neutral for now. Its too much of a hassle to go through an old article with numerous errors as Snuggums pointed out. But I will take a shot first with referencing. —Indian:BIO ^{[ ChitChat ]} 04:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]