Talk:Permanent Record: Al in the Box

Permanent Record: Al in the Box 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: November 1, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

Comedy Low‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title Parody?[edit]

Is it known if the title of this compilation is a parody of Alice in Chains's 1999 compilation Nothing Safe: Best of the Box? If so, the fact should be added. Mal7798 20:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could just as well be a joke on the term Jack in the Box. without reference, it doesn't belong hereDragonsDream (talk) 11:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Permanent Record: Al in the Box/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stability review[edit]

Article edit history upon inspection is fine going back over one (1) year.
I looked at the talk page and found no ongoing conflicts or major issues there either.

Next, on to image review. — Cirt (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Weird Al Yankovic Permanent Record.jpg = fair use image, appropriate fair use rationale on image page, no issues here.

Next, on to rest of review. — Cirt (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pass as GA[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.	Writing quality is indeed good for this article. Grammar and diction are appropriate throughout.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section is of satisfactory size and the article has a good structure and layout.
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.	Duly cited throughout with appropriate citations.
	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).	Very meticulous use of in-line citations, I like it. :)
	2c. it contains no original research.	Relies primarily on secondary sources and utilizes a smattering of primary sources only for matter-of-fact info.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Certainly broad enough, but some sections could be expanded in the future like perhaps reception but good enough for GA quality.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Article is indeed focused on the topic and could even be expanded in some places as a future idea.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Presented in a neutral tone throughout, no problems here.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No issues here, per stability review, above.
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.	No issues here, per image review, above.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues here, per image review above.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good article on an interesting topic related to parody and satire. — Cirt (talk) 03:23, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]