Talk:Misplaced Childhood

Fair use rationale for Image:Marillion-Misplaced Childhood(gatefold).jpg

Image:Marillion-Misplaced Childhood(gatefold).jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Misplaced Childhood/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think I can take this one this weekend. If I abandon this, ping me please. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so I lied. Doing it right now. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:17, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Could be better, but this article has worse issues.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   One entire paragraph is uncited; and almost all of them, if not all of them, don't have enough. All the information needs cited (excluding the lead, which should cover cited facts already in the body). You should also double-check to see that none of your links are dead. Judging by how little effort I've seen you put in here, I would guess that several of the few refs are dead. However, they do look surprisingly reliable, I'll give you that.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   There is no way this is all there is. You can't possibly be trying. One review from Allmusic definitely will not cut it. Two lines of text doesn't constitute a "legacy". There are no recording history details, nor touring, nor any description of the album's musical style, or anything. I am confident there's much more out there about this album.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No. One should at least make an attempt to give the negative side of critical reception.

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):

   The image grossly impedes the tracklist. If you were going to include it, first of all, cite the information it pertains to in the first place, and then adjust its size.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Too much expansion work to put on hold. Try again when you've got something that looks more like A Lesson in Romantics. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 01:25, 5 March 2017 (UTC)