 | Oddfellows (album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: August 22, 2013. (Reviewed version). |
 | A fact from Oddfellows (album) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 October 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Oddfellows (album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Niwi3 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I'll be glad to take this review. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This looks like very impressive work for an "indie" record: well-written, well-focused, and proofread. There may be a few issues though:
According to the album article style guide, sections that are prose-heavy should be at the beginning and sections that are lists or tables (such as track listing) should be at the end. So I suggest to move the track listing section after the reception.
- It seems that this was fixed by J Milburn. --Niwi3 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
In the lead, "The album was released on January 29, 2013, through the record label Ipecac Recordings." Do you really need the second comma? Same for the release section.I'm curious why you did not include the genre in the infobox. Not a major issue though.In the release section, Billboard 200 should be italicized as Billboard 200.
Overall, very good article. If you have any questions on these points, or if you think I'm being unreasonable, please ask. Thank you. --Niwi3 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems that Grapple X has been inactive since June 2013, so I'm going to fix these minor issues myself and pass the nomination. --Niwi3 (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Checklist
edit| Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Well-written: | ||
|
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | |
|
|
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | See above. |
| 2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
|
|
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | |
|
|
2b. 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). | |
|
|
2c. it contains no original research. | |
| 3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
|
|
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | |
|
|
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | |
|
|
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | |
|
|
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | |
| 6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
|
|
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | |
|
|
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
|
|
7. Overall assessment. | Pass. |