Talk:Beatsound Loverboy

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Petergriffin9901 in topic GA Review
Former good article nomineeBeatsound Loverboy was a Music good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 13, 2011Good article nomineeNot listed

Sources and article work

edit

Hello there! I'm here to tell that the information on the recording and production section and concept section were taken, edited from an interview Slimmy posted on his MySpace profile. However, the color of the text of that interview is written in the same color of the background. I copied that and pasted into the comments section. PS: That's the reason why the article as not got a lot of references. Thank you. Salgado96 (talk) 22:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Beatsound Loverboy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: CallMeNathanTalk2Me 21:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:  
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:  
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:  
    B. 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):  
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:  
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:  
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:  
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:  
  • Fail - This article is unfortunately resulting in a fail. The prose are really poor; I guess English is not your first language. The article is not backed up by almost any reliable sources, all by MySpace etc. You don't follow basic MoS guidelines, such as sources in infobox etc. This article is a C-class, please take time to read on the criteria and do a lot more research before renominating.--CallMeNathanTalk2Me 22:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply