Talk:The Future Sound of London/GA1

GA Review

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

I am beginning my review of the article.

Reviewer: —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 13:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

The article is pretty comprehensive, but has a few serious problems preventing it from reaching GA status at this point in time.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Generally well written, but I see a scattering of minor problems, such as the house music genre being capitalized in the intro. You might want to have a fresh set of eyes go over the whole article and do some copy editing, or submit the article at the Guild of Copy Editors' requests page.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   Looks like you've got most of your MOS compliance taken care of, although I don't think you want to have separate lines for every occupation in the infobox. You should also add a genre list to the infobox. The discography section is much too large. The standard is to list only studio albums, and link to a separate discography page when the list gets that large. I've created a new page and will remove most of the discography from this page. The quote in the "Independence" section is formatted correctly. You need to move the Cobain sentence at the end outside of the quotation marks. Go the template page for that quote template to see how it's done.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   You have some citations, but there are also major gaps in the article. The "Formation" section has no references, and everything from "FSOL" to "5.1 & Digital experimentation" is pretty thinly sourced. You'll need more references in those sections. The good news is, it looks like the article is well-sourced after that, from the archives section through "Independence".

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   There are a few problems with your sources. Discogs.com is not considered a reliable source, so everywhere that you're using it, you'll need to find another source. I see you've used Allmusic as well, and that would be a great replacement source. I'm pretty sure Blogspot isn't a reliable source either.

   C. No original research:

   Looks mostly good on this, but there are a few problems such as the last paragraph in the first history subsection: "In the following three years the pair produced music under a variety of aliases, releasing a plethora of singles and EPs, including the successful bleep techno singles "Q" and "Metropolis", some of which would end up on the duo's first compilation album "Earthbeat" in 1992. "Metropolis" was also very influential in the house scene." You need a source to backup claims like "successful... singles" and "very influential". This goes back to 2A.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   The history section looks good, but you need some other sections, primarily a section about their musical style, before the coverage of the topic could be considered complete.

   B. Focused:

   The parts you do have are well put together.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   There are a few parts that slip a tiny bit into WP:PEACOCK, like the "very influential" mentioned above in 2C, but nothing severe.

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   The one image you have is fine, but I think you need to add a least one or two more. Perhaps an album cover, or some other the other artwork, to illustrate how they design their own album covers, and are big into 3D artwork? Also, the fair use rationales for the audio clips need to be improved. Check the link on the file pages to the rationale guide for tips on how to improve them.

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   The caption is fine for the one image.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Unfortunately, as much as I like FSOL, I have to fail this article for now. It's got a great start, but it has a few primary issues:

1. It needs to be expanded with a musical style section
2. More references need to be added, and certain unreliable sources need to be replaced.
3. A few more images need to be added, and fair use rationales fixed.

Good luck! I may even help you work on this article in the future, as I am a big fan myself. —Torchiest ^talk/_edits 14:06, 16 September 2010 (UTC)