Talk:Industrial music/GA1

GA Review

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

Comments

An interesting article, but substantial work needs to be done if this article is going to pass.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   This article needs a thorough copy-edit, including the lead. The first sentence should tell readers what industrial music is, but instead it just says industrial music includes other genre elements. Another example: Read the second sentence of the lead, then the last sentence. This article is also too familiar with its subjects. Names are thrown around everywhere, but who are they exactly? Here is an example: "Simon Reynolds (Who is this person?) described the "classic Cabaret Voltaire (I know who Cabaret Voltaire is. What about other readers?) sound" as "hissing high hats and squelchy snares of rhythm-generator; [Chris] Watson's (Who is this person?) smears of synth slime; [Stephen] Mallinder's (Who is this person?) dankly pulsing bass; and [Richard H.] Kirk's (Who is this person?) spikes of shattered-glass guitar." Readers need to understand who these people are. Web references need to conform to MOS specs. Please use Template:Cite web and Template:Cite Journal for starters. External links need to be cleaned up. Bibliography should come after the See Also section. It should probably be a third level header section under references. Also, in external links, what does cyberpunk have to do with industrial music?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Some references lack an actual source, namely #14 and its compatriots. What or who is "Ibid"? I do not believe there is original research here, but what makes Brainwashed.com a reliable source in references #44 and #67?

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article fails to address post-industrial music acts in detail. A paragraph stating "Post-Industrial music is an umbrella term" is not comprehensive information. Readers need to understand how throbbing gristle music turned into nine inch nails music. That sorta thing. The article is relatively focused. Sometimes it slips into unnecessary or confusing information that impedes readability. For example, the sentence about developing "a version of black comedy in industrial music" is non-sequitur information.

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):

   The Frank Zappa image caption needs to reflect relevant information about the topic. He and Captain Beefheart are in concert. Alright, but what did they do for industrial music? Something like, "Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart's psychedelic rock was highly influential on industrial music.". Likewise, the throbbing gristle image caption needs to explain how important that record was for the genre, and not trivial information about the photograph location.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm placing the review on hold until June 4. Good luck. -- Noj r (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Second Look: After reviewing a second time, I am failing the nomination. The article has received some work since I reviewed it, but I'm afraid many of my points were left unresolved and some new problems have arisen. A copy-edit has been performed, but I believe an even better one is required to bring the prose up to GA quality. The informality with the subject matter has been reduced, which is good. However, the web references have still not been properly cited with template:cite web. Also, the "Ibid" references remain and serve no purpose. While some work was done on the post-industrial section, I still believe it needs to be expanded further. One of these expansions suffers WP:NPOV issues: "Without a doubt, the best-selling offshoot..." - Who says they are the best-selling offshoot? It certainly wasn't the RIAA; the web link simply leads to a search engine. The images used were fine, however the throbbing gristle one still doesn't present a caption relevant to the subject matter. When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. -- Noj r (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)