Talk:L.A.P.D. (band)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aaron north (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I have concluded my review, this article looks pretty close to good on the surface, but it does have some problems related to the use of primary sources. I believe these issues can be fixed, so I will hold this article for up to a week to give the editors time to work on the article. Aaron north (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Several updates have resolved most of the issues. There is only one issue with a primary sourced claim in the article left to resolve. Aaron north (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Y Looks good now. Aaron north (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

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

   This article extensively uses a primary source. (The book written by Reginald Arvizu) WP:PRIMARY Per WP policy, this source can only be used for facts and data. It can not be used for analysis. This is probably going to be the most challenging aspect of this review: to verify that primary sources were not misused.

If the "Use of Primary Source" section is the only problem here, then  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments

The following is a list of concerns that I believe need to be satisfied to pass review. If you disagree or believe I made an error, please point that out too. Aaron north (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Couple problems with this sentence: (After a short time of the group's presence there, Shaffer decided to return to the band, leaving Bakersfield, and Brian Welch would eventually "check out the [band's] music scene.") The bolded part is awkward, and the whole sentence is long with lots of commas, should probably be broken up somehow. Also, what is "a short time"? Maybe this could be reworded as "later that year, Shaffer decided..." or whatever the time frame was. Finally, who is Brian Welch? At this point of the article he is just some random dude who appeared without an introduction. Was he Shaffer's friend from Bakersfield who decided to tag along, or what?

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence: (The group, known as Korn, has released nine studio albums, two of which, peaking number one on the Billboard 200, and all of their albums have been certified an award.) is just awkwardly-worded all the way around. I'm not sure if it needs to be broken up into shorter sentences or not, but it definitely should be reworded.

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• This sentence: (Pete Capra left the band due to his drug abuse.) looks odd just thrown in at the end like that. I assume he left before Korn was formed, so it should probably go into one of the earlier sections. (also possible source issue, see below)

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• As mentioned above, primary sources should only be used for statements of fact and data, not analysis. Also, they should be used only when a secondary source is not really available. That is probably going to be the case for a lot of the article, but not all of it, see below.

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The following is a list of other thoughts or suggestions to improve the article. It is not necessary to satisfy these points to meet the GA criteria. Aaron north (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• You have a dead link for the citation of Stillwell. I do not believe this violates the GA criteria because it is not a major aspect or claim in the article, and I believe if the source was good at the time you can still keep it until a new source can be found. I'd assume you can probably find a new source to replace this one, though.

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of Primary Source

The following are judgments made by me regarding the appropriate or inappropriate use of primary sources. The interesting sentences which I decided that I was fine with are also listed here just in case a future reviewer (who may agree or disagree) is interested in what I looked at. Aaron north (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• Y This sentence (and another similar sentence near the end) was cited by a primary source: (The group was inspired by the bands that Capra had shown them, and committed to head into those band's genres and style.) I decided this was a statement of fact from a band member. An outside observer can not decide who a band was influenced by (at least not well) without input from the band. Generally when a band tells the world who influenced their music, we accept it at their word as fact. This band was also not likely famous enough to give their influences to a biographer or reporter, so a primary source may be unavoidable.
• Y This sentence (In 1990, their manager introduced them to Triple X Records, an independent Los Angeles based record company that has signed bands such as Dr. Dre, Social Distortion, Jane's Addiction, and the The Vandals.) was referenced by primary source. It is probably fine to use it to say their band manager introduced them to triple X. I wondered about relying on it for describing what other bands were signed by triple x, but oddly enough I don't think it is a primary source for the end of the sentence. This isn't triple x saying this, it is someone else reporting on who triple x has signed. So, I think this sentence is fine.
• N This sentence (The album was not distributed properly by the record company, which left the group out of money.) is referenced by a primary source, but this probably qualifies as analysis. This reason for lack of success should either be removed here and elsewhere, or replaced with a direct quote like "this person from the band said this regarding the album" rather than "the album failed because of this, and I believe it because the band told me so"

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

• N Not quite. The sentence now reads (The album was not distributed properly by the record company.). The fact that the band ran out of money isn't really the issue here, the band complained that the record company did not distribute their album properly. The record company might disagree with this analysis. This is a primary source from the band's POV, so we either need to remove the claim that the album was not distributed correctly, or we need to replace that sentence with a direct quote so that the reader knows it is the opinion of soandso that the album was not distributed correctly, rather than some verified fact. Something similar to how you fixed the drug abuse claim would work here. Aside from this, (and following a couple minor updates I made to improve the prose) I see no other issues remaining in the article. Aaron north (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

•  Done CrowzRSA 01:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

• N This sentence (Pete Capra left the band due to his drug abuse.) is referenced by a primary source. I assume there is not a secondary source for this because Capra is not exactly well-known, but it should probably be changed to a quote from someone explaining why they believed he left, if possible.

•  Done CrowzRSA 23:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)