Talk:Unhalfbricking/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

The review on this album was done a while ago, and doesn't seem to have been covered by the GA Sweep. While reading I noted that some statements were not explained or developed - "marked a further musical move away from American influences". Some statements are made in the lead which are not then picked up in the main body- "arguably reached its peak" and ""A Sailor's Life", is seen as pivotal in the development of English folk rock music." (the track is mention in the body, but not as pivotal in the development of English folk rock music - the song sample is captioned "the extended song in which folk and rock came together" which is unsourced). ""Who Knows Where the Time Goes?", a song covered by many other performers and now regarded as a classic" - not in the main. "the album also marked Sandy Denny's maturation as a singer and songwriter," mentioned in lead, but not explained or further mentioned in the main body.

There is an impression that the writers are aware of material on the album, and have made allusions to this material, but haven't really developed it so that the reader is given the full information. The lead teases with information, but does not satisfy with detail.

The prose is sometimes unclear - "After their previous album had seen original singer Judy Dyble replaced by Sandy Denny, the group's male vocalist Iain Matthews left during the recordings for Unhalfbricking,[4] and Denny took a more central role." Is this saying that Iain Matthews left because Judy Dyble had been replaced by Sandy Denny? Clarity needed.

It's not clear what is the focus of the section called "Music". And following it is a section called "Background" which is mainly about a car crash, and then has a statement that "Dave Swarbrick was invited to join full-time for the follow-up, Liege & Lief." The connection is not immediately apparent.

"The latter track had been a traditional English folk song collected by A. L. Lloyd..." - I think this is just a grammar error.

The article is quite bitty, with snippets of information, and single sentence paragraphs. There's an unfinished feel about it, and a lack of organisation which means it is difficult for the reader to get an easy grasp on what information is being presented.

Sources are tricky with some bands - even for fairly significant albums such as this - so it's pleasing to see that sources have been found, especially ones which can be checked online. However, some links are dead. I have found one source in the wayback machine, and it would be worth checking for others, such as this. I haven't checked all statements yet, though some - such as the statements made in the lead which are not followed up in the body - need sourcing.

The images and sound clips have free use statements - though I am not sure if File:Frompastarchives.jpg has been firmly enough linked to this article. If this is the performance of Si Tu Dois Partir on TOTP, that should be made clear. Also, the appropriate source for the image should be stated.

I think there's a good article to be made out of the available material on this album, but we are not quite there at the moment. I'll inform the significant contributor, User:Rodhullandemu, and see what can be done. SilkTork *^YES! 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Very little has changed since the [last GA assessment]. It makes no sense to go over old ground, so perhaps primarily the diffs should be addressed. Rodhullandemu 23:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

I wasn't aware that the review had been completed, since I wasn't notified. There is clearly some work to be done, which I will address perhaps when my current chronic insomnia has been overcome. Meanwhile, I see no rush to close this review one way or the other and it would be somewhat pointless to have it failed and resubmitted all over again. Rodhullandemu 16:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the nudge. Yes, I agree it is better to improve an article than delist it. I had intended to do some more work on this, but got distracted. Let's put a 14 day target on this to allow improvements to be made, and assess the situation again on Feb 10th. SilkTork *^YES! 09:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm closing the review for now, as I don't want to keep it open indefinitely, and I haven't had time to look at it closely. SilkTork *^YES! 11:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• I see there have been some nonsense edits, and ridiculous removals of images. If it's the last think I do before I die, it will be to retain this as a GA, considering the work that's gone into it. My time is thinly spread these days, but once I have finished with it, it will be perfectly justifiable as a GA- not that it wasn't already. Kindly leave it with me. Rodhullandemu 23:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC)