Talk:The Same Old Blood Rush with a New Touch
The Same Old Blood Rush with a New Touch has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 8, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
[edit]Just a thought. I didn't see anything in the article saying that this track was feature in the game NHL07. If I missed it then feel free to slap me upside the head and if it isn't in there should we add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.205.30 (talk) 04:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Assessment comment
[edit]The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:The Same Old Blood Rush with a New Touch/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I don't know why it should be moved. It's a single. Most other singles have their own page, it doesn't need to be part of the album. |
Last edited at 08:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 08:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:The Same Old Blood Rush with a New Touch/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
| |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
| |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Copyvio tool reports high copyvio %, however that is only due to quotes, the band name, and song names. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. |
Let's add some reviews on the vinyl copy as well: http://modern-vinyl.com/2015/01/08/reissue-review-cute-is-what-we-aim-for-the-same-old-blood-rush-with-a-new-touch/ - not doing per comment below | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). |
| |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | ||
7. Overall assessment. |
AFAIK Modern Vinyl is a self-published source (their podcast is published by Jabber Jaw Media but the website seems to be self-published). Yeepsi (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think I addressed all the points before you put the review on hold. Yeepsi (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)