Talk:Intimacy (Bloc Party album)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello editors. I'll be reviewing this article today. Check back for my usual analysis and checklist. Timmeh 16:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   "the experience energised them and they decided against the use of strict musical frameworks during the studio sessions"

   This could be worded better so it is more clear. Change it so it explains how the band being energized influenced the decision.

   Attempted a fix. (this lead to the decision against the use of strict musical frameworks during the studio sessions)  GARDEN  17:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   It looks good now. Timmeh 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   "The song was rumoured to be about the murdered South African anti-apartheid protester Steve Biko,"

   Rumors really have no place in Wikipedia articles. Either reword the sentence so it claims reliable sources have said the song is about Biko, and cite a source or two, or just remove the sentence completely.

   Reworded - it wasn't a rumour so much as Okereke said directly it wasn't about him. If it still reads badly I'll happily remove. (Okereke denied that the song was about the murdered South African anti-apartheid protester Steve Biko)  GARDEN  17:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   It looks better now. Timmeh 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   I'll be checking the references later.

   There are a few claims in the track listing section that aren't sourced, including the list of bonus tracks. Timmeh 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm, could be a while on these. Bear with me.  GARDEN  21:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Right, I've found some sources for those bonus tracks so fingers crossed everything is in order now.  GARDEN  21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hey, just to say that track listings (including bonus tracks) do not need citations as the albums themselves are the sources of information. Refs are only needed for track information that could be challenged (like the "Pioneers/"Price of Gas" printing error) and I doubt anyone would here. I had them all for the three albums but removed them after it came up in an FA discussion. Even the vinyl and DVD formats do not require them, the refs there are to explain the appearance, label, or dates. Rafablu88 21:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Hmm. That's something I didn't know. Considering that, you can do what you want with them, but it doesn't hurt to have citations anyway. Timmeh 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The original digital download cover needs licensing information.

   Added.  GARDEN  17:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'll have my verdict posted after I check out the references. Timmeh 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   I'm passing the article. Congratulations and good work. Good luck on your FT nom too. If you need any input on that, don't hesitate to ask me. Timmeh 22:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks muchly, Timmeh, for another brilliantly efficient review :D Really appreciate it :)  GARDEN  09:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)