Talk:I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One/GA1

Latest comment: 9 years ago by Zwerg Nase in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 12:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply


I will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):  
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
  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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

A short, but very comprehensive article about Yo La Tengo's most acclaimed album to date. Very hard to find anything wrong with it, just one point I could think of:

  • In the release section, you might want to adress the different releases. Rate your music lists a limited edition release of both a CD+bonus disc and a vinyl, and another vinyl release in 2009. The tracks of the bonus disc could then also be included in the track listing as shown in the GA of Felt Mountain.

That's about all I can think of. I place the review on hold for now. Good work! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zwerg Nase: Thank you for your review, really appreciated. Unfortunately, Rate Your Music is considered an unreliable source according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, so we can't use that as a reference. I tried to find a reliable source about the album's limited edition release, but I couldn't find anything. This means that the limited edition is not notable and therefore we shouldn't include it in Wikipedia. Cheers. --Niwi3 (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
That is really a pity. I tried my best to find a reliable source myself, but failed to do so, since apparently Discogs is also not considered RS. As for RYM, that is frustrating, considering that at least for new releases they have a policy similar to Wikipedia, where you have to provide sources for every entry. This does not seem to have been in place at the time of this album's release though, since I couldn't find any... Well the good news is, then this article covers every aspect that it can, so it is a pass! :) Congrats! Zwerg Nase (talk) 20:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)Reply