Talk:Dangerous (Michael Jackson album)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, there are huge sections without citations, and this needs to be taken care of before I can review the article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- I would suggest fixing up a few of the citations' styles, too. 和DITOREtails 15:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have a feeling this will go nowhere, the nominator hasn't edited the article even once. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I would say to close this review as a fail. The citations are about half of what makes a good article, and personally, I'd fail it just for not having them. I took a brief look at the article and although it has some citations, there don't seem to be any unused bibliographical entries that just haven't been converted to normal in-line cites yet (i.e. we can't put a {{no footnotes}} template on it or anything like that). Until the article has more sources, and uses them, I'd say it's nowhere near being able to be a GA at this time. Further, as an album article, this should have been placed under the "Albums" subheading on the nominations page, not the general "Other music articles" subheading (not that this is a gamebreaker detail, but still...) LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- If nothing is done over the weekend, I'll fail it. FunkMonk (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- If that's the case, then I would say to close this review as a fail. The citations are about half of what makes a good article, and personally, I'd fail it just for not having them. I took a brief look at the article and although it has some citations, there don't seem to be any unused bibliographical entries that just haven't been converted to normal in-line cites yet (i.e. we can't put a {{no footnotes}} template on it or anything like that). Until the article has more sources, and uses them, I'd say it's nowhere near being able to be a GA at this time. Further, as an album article, this should have been placed under the "Albums" subheading on the nominations page, not the general "Other music articles" subheading (not that this is a gamebreaker detail, but still...) LazyBastardGuy 05:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- I have a feeling this will go nowhere, the nominator hasn't edited the article even once. FunkMonk (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The editor was given more than enough time to address the issues, but he hadn't made a single improvement yet. Not to mention that he nominated the article without any significant contribution to it. I'm closing the nomination as failed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:28, 10 September 2013 (UTC)