Talk:Stone Temple Pilots (2010 album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tezero (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

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):

   These sources may be unreliable:

• The Audio Perv (14)

Y Evidently the article had broken the links to their audio interview. I broke the citations up (adding one in the process) using the {{cite video}} ({{cite audio}} redirect) template to the actual mp3 audio links; I commented out the direct URL to the original article (which provides no valuable information other than being the source) at the end of each reference. Citations are now [14], [26], [30], [32], and [38].

• ChristopherSims.com (71)

 Not done I believe this is in accordance with WP:SELFPUB, since the website is owned and maintained by the director of the music video, which is verifiable by the press links and notable music videos he's directed, with notable artists, and I consider his links to his own press, contact info, representation contact info, etc to prove "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". (He himself, however, was !voted as not being notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia and his stub article was deleted.) The information obtained from his website was merely the shooting date (April 11), which is "not unduly self-serving". Obviously, let me know if you disagree.

Okay. Just be sure you can explain that later. Tezero (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Some other less-than-ideal sources are used for release details, but I understand it's hard to find reliable stuff for that.

Thank you

1. C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

2. 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):

3. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

4. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

5. 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:

• Is File:Between the lines music video screenshot.png necessary? All the fair use resolution says to justify it is "The screenshot is intended to represent the nature of the single." I don't really see how this works.

Y The image was "filler"; I've removed it from the article.

Okay. Tezero (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

• Are the first two sound clips (File:Stone temple pilots hickory dichotomy sample.ogg and File:Stone_temple_pilots_huckleberry_crumble_sample.ogg necessary? Four sound clips is a lot, and these two don't seem to establish much usefulness, whereas the other two demonstrate the songwriting of the album.

Y Excellent point. Those two removed and speedily deleted.

Okay. Tezero (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

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

   Per above. The captions doesn't show why the images or sound clips is necessary.

Y Captions removed through above deletions.

1. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   This article is good overall. Just fix these things and I shall grant GA my approval. Tezero (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Great review, thank you very much! Please view my changes and additions and see if everything is still in compliance for GA. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 08:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be. Good work finding so much on such a recent album. Tezero (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC)