Talk:Madvillainy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 09:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am giving this article a GA Review for possible GA status. Shearonink (talk) 09:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

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?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The form looks good but there are some issues - please see 2B & 2C. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   Ref #55 requires a login. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   C. It contains no original research:

   The Track listing and Personnel sections are unsourced. You can use Template:Cite AV media to directly cite from the album notes etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   Fixed. Nicely-done. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Ran the copyvio tool. There is a commonality between this article and http://www.egotripland.com/album-cover-madvillain-madvillainy-jeff-jank/ bu that is only because of some quoted material and since this is clearly-identified, that is not an issue. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   See closing statement. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   See closing statement. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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:

   No edit wars. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   Images all have the proper permissions etc. Shearonink (talk) 00:12, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Well-done article, well-referenced, lays out the influence of the album and its cover art very well. I feel like I understand something I had no idea of previously. Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

References

• @Shearonink: Thank you for taking your time to review the article! The ref #55 is strange. When I open it, it doesn't require logging in, but when I put it into Web Archive, it redirects to login page. I guess it might depend on IP. Nevertheless, I've added an archived copy of the page. Could you check if it works for you? And I've added the source for track listing and personnel, but used {{Cite AV media notes}}. Hope it's okay. Cheers! –AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing those issues. Congratulations! Shearonink (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm glad you liked the article, it gives me confidence to try to improve some more articles in future. Have a great day :) –AstonishingTunesAdmirer (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)