Jump to content

Talk:21st Century Breakdown/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Hello hello. I will reviewing this article. Waited a month to give it some breathing space from the release date. It should be done within a week at the latest. Comment about anything that takes your fancy. I will do just that. Rafablu88 19:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE Have copyedited all of it. There are still outstanding points, mostly to do with references.  On hold till everything is sorted out. Rafablu88 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll fix all the references later today when I have more time. Timmeh 20:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    It looks fine after copyediting.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    OK on this part.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Clear focus on all aspects of the event. Might need a few sentences in the future if it wins any awards.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Everything explained dispassionately.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    Be careful of vandal IP addresses.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: PASS Rafablu88 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the great review, and especially for copyediting the article. I hope to see you around. Timmeh 17:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POINTS

LEAD/BOX

REFLIST

  • 1 Remove '.net' and link publisher.
  • 4 It's print media not web. Remove the scan link and cite the magazine issue, date and page. Link publisher. Rafablu88 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 7 Link publisher.
  • 8 Publisher in italics and link as well.
  • 9 same as 8 and also remove 'magazine'.
  • 10 No publisher.
  • 11 FANSITE!!! Remove content or find reliable source.
  • 12 YOUTUBE!!! Cite TV show instead.
  • 13 Publisher should be "Spotlightingnews". Not done yet. Rafablu88 02:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 16 Remove 'magazine'.
  • 17 Link publisher.
  • 22 Link publisher.
  • 23 Publisher should be "Rocklouder".
  • 24 Link publisher.
  • 28 FANSITE!!! Remove content or find reliable source.
  • 29 Remove '.co.uk' and link publisher.
  • 30 Remove publisher italics.
  • 37 Link publisher.
  • 38 Publisher should be "Newsvine".
  • 41 BARE REF!!!
  • 43 Publisher should be The Times.
  • 44 Publisher should be BBC.
  • 45 No publisher.
  • 46 Publisher should be Entertainment Weekly.
  • 47 BARE REF!!!
  • 48 Copies info from Rolling Stone. Cite that instead.
  • 49 Remove Rolling Stone as author. Italics and link on publisher.
  • 51 Remove '.com' and link publisher.
  • 52 Add proper author and publisher should be Spin.
  • 54 Link publisher (ARIA).
  • 56 Publishing date.
  • 58 Add language like 67 and publisher should be "Hitlisten".
  • 63 Publisher should be "Musicline".
  • 71 Link publisher (RIANZ).
  • 76 Add language like 67 and link publisher Hitlistan.
  • 77 Publisher should be Schweizer Hitparade.
  • 79 Link publisher.
  • 80 same as 79
  • 82 same as 79/80
  • 83 same as 63

Rafablu88 19:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the references up to number 38 so far. As for linking the publisher, wouldn't it be overlinking to do so if the publisher has already been linked in a previous reference? Timmeh 01:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Each citation+reference is treated as binary in case someone just clicks on a single citation without even looking at anything else. Rafablu88 02:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done The references are fixed, except for the "Hitlisten" one. The source is in English, and I don't see "Hitlisten" anywhere at the source. The bottom of the page says "Copyright © 2009 danishcharts.com." Timmeh 16:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Put the wrong number. Fixed the actual ref myself. Rafablu88 16:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


REFERENCES REQUIRED

The source is the album liner notes. I've added the citation to the top of the section; you can move it if it looks awkward there. Timmeh 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DONE Timmeh 03:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Australian ARIA Charts give platinum discs for 40,000+ sales. Sales ref is lower. Sort out the discrepancy (remove one or the other, or find a new sales ref). Rafablu88 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed the sales column altogether. There were several problems with it, including scarce sources and redundancy to the certifications column. It really didn't serve much of a purpose as it was. Timmeh 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]