Talk:Klaxons/GA1

GA Review

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

I will be happy to review for GAC. H1nkles (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy

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 necessarily 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

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:

   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:

   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:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Regarding Lead

• Your lead is very short. Per WP:LEAD it is to be a summary of the article. Please consider expanding to include band history and other parts of the article.

Regarding Formation

• I'm seeing a common prose error identified in this example, "The band added repacement live drummer Steffan Halperin, with the band announcing" "...with the band announcing..." this is a passive voice and isn't good prose for an encyclopedia article. I fixed a previous example in this section under the edit summary, "ce". Instead make the second half of this sentence its own sentence.

Regarding Polydor records

• I added a to the first sentence in this section. Aside from it being a stub paragraph (which needs to be expanded or combined with another paragraph) you'll need to cite this fact. H1nkles (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Check the tense in this sentence, I believe you're supposed to be in the past tense according to the context, "the band follow in the footsteps of Miss Kittin, Erol Alkan, Felix Da Housecat and Simian Mobile Disco, who have all made similar contributions. It was officially released on 1 October 2007."
• I reiterate the concerns on the article's talk page regarding this paragraph, "Klaxons singled out a new song that has strong prog influences as a guide to one possible direction the album may go in, revealed recently NME. Guitarist Simon Taylor said: "We wanna make something that's bigger and softer and louder and lo-fi and heavier produced - just lots of contradictions. I think it's gonna be like the last record but swollen. We've been listening to a lot of European prog music and dubstep and dance and folk. A huge broad variety of things really. There's one track we've been playing in soundcheck, it's this massive prog opus." A cite needs to be added. Also what is a "prog"? This sounds like jargon to me.
• Stub paragraph, "Klaxons performed with the singer Rihanna on the song "Umbrella" which had "Golden Skans" mixed into the background during the Brit Awards 2008 held in London on 20 February 2008." please expand or combine.
• No need to wikilink American unless there is an article on the American NME awards. Otherwise it's too general to link to the U.S. article.
• To be fair I'd say the same thing about the linking to the various countries in the next paragraph. Unless there is an article specific to the band's tour I don't think it adds anything to this article to link to the country. H1nkles (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Musical style

• Need to cite this section better.

Regarding Awards

• You reference one of the awards but not the rest. This is inconsistent, you'll need to reference the rest. H1nkles (talk) 21:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding references

References are ok, links check out.

Regarding Interview/links

This link Interview InTheMix and Unseen TV does not link to anything about the band as far as I can tell. H1nkles (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall comments

• There are some prose issues that I've outlined above.
• Primarily the issue is references. You need to better reference your information.
• The lead needs to be expanded.
• Some of your wikilinking is a bit excessive, I've outlined that above.
• Photos look good.
• I'll hold the article for a week to allow you to make the fixes and then review it again. H1nkles (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Article has been on hold for a week with no work or comments on my review. I am forced at this point to fail the article. Please consider my comments and make changes and renominate. H1nkles (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2009 (UTC)