Talk:Defeated Sanity/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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

Unfinished "attempted" review.

Overall looks pretty good. In good conscience, however, it would be an insult to the genre to outright pass a metal article that lacked needed umlauts. I've fixed the missing ones in the band member name. Please copyedit and proofread, then contact me for a second review. DurovaCharge! 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Cannibaloki 02:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can the second review begin or the article failed? It doesn't seem that anything has happened to this article in a month plus. Wizardman 14:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate withdrew on the 27th of January. This probably could have been prevented. — Realist2 05:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been restarted, could the new reviewer continue below this post, rather than start GA2. Thank you. — Realist2 06:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will take over review of this article and start fresh. H1nkles (talk) 16:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review Philosophy[edit]

When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria and make my determination as to the overall quality of the article.

GA Checklist[edit]

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:
    I've done some fixes, it is ok for GA but will need more work to advance
    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, as shown by a source spot-check?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    B. 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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    It's still a little light on content.
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  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:
  6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    No images, big need for this article but not enough to fail it since GA criteria states "wherever possible images should be included." In discussing this with editor I am assured that no free images exist currently.
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    An image will need to be added, prose work done but it is sufficient currently to pass.H1nkles (talk) 04:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Regarding Lead[edit]

  • First paragraph in the lead is a stub and should either be expanded or combined with other paragraphs.
    • Done.
  • Same for the last paragraph in the lead. H1nkles (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding History[edit]

  • Writing is good.
    • Thanks ;)
  • Wikilink Imperious Malevolence even if it is a red link, you wikilink Necrophagist so to be consistent you should link the other band as well.
    • Done.
  • Is there any info on why the band members left? That would help expand the article a bit. H1nkles (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately not.

Regarding Prelude to the tragedy[edit]

  • With such a large quote you need to put it in block quotes. See MOS for how to do this.
    • Done using <blockquote></blockquote>
  • Last paragraph is one sentence, either expand or combine with the paragraph above to remove stub.
    • Done, combined in a unique para.
  • Check your tense through this section, at points you are in the past tense and then you move to the present. Since the album came out in 2004 you should stay in the past tense. H1nkles (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem, I ask a user to help me with this.

Regarding Psalms of the Moribund[edit]

  • Again the quote needs to be block quoted per MOS.
    • Done too.
  • You should put quote marks around the names of the magazines that reviewed the albums - this would apply to the previous subsection as well.
    • Done.
  • There are some minor prose issues that are enough to warrant a prose review of the article. I fixed one small thing at the end of this subsection but you should go through it and make sure the prose is all clean. H1nkles (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, I will see this better.

Regarding Members, tables, timeline[edit]

This all looks good, very organized, colorful and informative.

Woohoo! Cannibaloki 22:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding References[edit]

  • I like accessdates w/in 3-4 months of my review. Please fix the ones from August, they're a little far out.
    • Done, all "very well" updated now.
  • The reference to the MySpace blog is a questionable one. Can you support the credibility of this citation? I usually look with suspicion on blogs in general as they are primarily opinion-based. Please support the use of this citation here and if your argument makes sense I'll go with it.
    • The (MySpace) blog entry was wrote by the band as a press release statement. Anyway, I replace it with another reference. Cannibaloki 01:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding overall review[edit]

  • The article is descent, please address the issues listed above.
  • Prose could use a little work.
  • Per GA criteria there should be a photo if possible. I think a photo should be available that would meet Fair Use standards. This should at least be explored and if nothing is available then please explain that here.
    • I have the albums covers, but they don't add nothing relevant to article.
  • The article could be expanded but I think it covers just barely enough of the subject so I won't fail it for lack of information. That said it could really use some more information on what the band is doing now (it sounds from the article that they've been searching for band members for over a year). What happened that caused the other members to quit? Do they have any tour dates or another studio album planned for 2009?
  • Take care of these things and it should pass. I'll put the article on hold for one week until 2/5/09 and then take a look at your progress. Thanks for the interesting read. H1nkles (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second review[edit]

  • The article is improved. I will pass it but it does need a bit more work.
  • Don't italicize websites in the references. Per WP:CITE only journals, newspapers, books and magazines are italicized. This will need to be fixed.
  • I'm not that put the sites in italic, the template does this automatically with the field |work=.
  • Replace |work= with |publisher= that will do it. H1nkles (talk) 04:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • |work=Blabbermouth.net & |publisher=Roadrunner Records Cannibaloki 04:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please work on an image, something must be out there that can be added.
  • Of course, I will try to send an e-mail to the band.
  • It's a shame the timeline had to be removed.
  • I fully agree with you.
  • That said I will pass it as a GA if you will fix these few things. Congratulations and it was a pleasure to work with you on this review. H1nkles (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Defeated_Sanity/GA1&oldid=1136336831"