Talk:Green Day/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process.

Checking against GA criteria

To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of January 14, 2010, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Lead: Its early releases for independent record label Lookout! Records earned them a grassroots fanbase, ... Its -them, confusion of pronouns here.

   Breakthrough success: 1994–1996: four sentences in the last paragraph start with Imsoniac, a little variation would be good.

   Insomniac was a much darker and heavier response by the band, compared to the poppier, more melodic Dookie. response to what?

   American Idiot and renewed success: 2003–2006: The band chose not to try to re-create the stolen album, but instead started over. By the end of 2003[when?], Green Day collaborated with Iggy Pop on two tracks for his album Skull Ring. The tag should perhaps be addressed.

   and the United Kingdom, where they drew a crowd of 130,000 people over a span of two days. do we know where? or is this the venue in the enxt entence. This could do with tidying up.

   Foxboro Hot Tubs and 21st Century Breakdown: 2007–present: By October 2007, Armstrong had 45 songs written, but the band showed no further signs of progress until October 2008, when a video of the group recording with producer Butch Vig in the studio was posted on YouTube. Two videos showing the band in the studio were posted on YouTube.[39][40] In the tour section of the band's official website, the message "World Tour coming soon!" is shown.[41][42] The writing and recording process, spanning three years and four recording studios, was finally finished in April 2009.[43]. I think this section needs tidying up to remove repetition and clarify.

   Overall, the article isin fairly good shape, but a thorough copy-edit would be good to tie togerher material that has been added by a range of editors. I have pointed out some examples above but scrutiny of the entire text and copy-editing would make it work better.

   1. Lead: The present structure of two short paras and one long is a little lopsidede. Could it be arranged more evenly?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Reference #3 doesn't link to the right article, it might be somewhere there on the site.

   Reference #8 is a dead link.

   Reference #21 is a dead link.

   Reference #11 is a deadlink

   Inconsistency in citation styles needs to be rectified, some are just bare urls, some are properly formatted inline citations.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

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:

OK, the prose could do with a thorough copyedit and there are some dead links that need looking at, also the citation style is inconsistent at present. When that is sorted out I will take another look, until then on hold for seven days, major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been meaning to clear this article up. I might be able to get to it later this week, but that's tentative. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Whilst there have been a few minor amendments the article has not substantially improved so as it has been 9days, I am delisting. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)