Talk:The High End of Low/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 14:15, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
"Chris Vrenna (Nine Inch Nails) and Rob Holliday (The Prodigy)" - Do you think it's necessary to specify their other bands in brackets? Looks a bit superfluous to me. Maybe it would look better if you specified these bands in prose rather than brackets, as seems to be the style in the next two sentences.
Removed.

'Manson's fantasies about "smashing [Woods'] skull in with a sledgehammer."' - can you expand on this at all? That's a pretty provocative statement and it makes me want to know more about the situation.
I've elaborated on how that song is inspired by their breakup.

As a fiercely pro-choice person I personally approve of your piping of 'anti-abortion rhetoric' to 'anti-abortion movement', but in the interest of neutrality I will mention that it very likely would be considered biased. I'll leave it up to you but I wouldn't be surprised if this is challenged in the future.
Changed to "such as pro-war and anti-abortion rhetoric." I think I piped anti-abortion rhetoric like that because of the link to pro-war rhetoric. Or would it be better to change this to "... referencing various aspects of neoconservatism in its lyrics, such as pro-war rhetoric and anti-abortion policies"?
That suggested wording does sound better. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should Artists and repertoire be abbreviated? Why not just mention the full title?
Done.

"anybody's [sic]" - assuming that's a typo from Rolling Stone rather than Twiggy (I presume Rolling Stone conducted a verbal interview and then transcribed it) I think you should just type it up correctly.
Done.

"much [the soon-to-be-murdered-in-their-home press] believe in their freedom of speech" - once I read the original source I could see how this bracketed statement makes sense, but just reading it on its own is confusing. I'm not sure if there's much you can do about that, I just thought I should mention it.
I removed the part in brackets, and rephrased the whole thing slightly.

"week figure since live album" - I think you could use a 'the' in between 'since' and 'live'
Done.

Can you link to an archived snapshot of the official website in the external links section?
It was a flash-based website, so archive.org couldn't properly copy it. And the only archive.is save is just a redirect to Universal Music's webpage. So I've had to remove it altogether.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
The lead mentioned multiple editions of the record being released. While this is clearly the case as indicated by the track listing section, I was expecting to see further coverage of it in the prose. Can you find anyone commenting on these multiple releases?
I've had a look around, but couldn't find anything. Should I remove that sentence from the lead? I remember putting that there as filler anyway, because that first paragraph of the lead looked a bit lop-sided with just 3 sentences. I'm sure I'd be able to remove it and fill it back out again with something sourced.
No if you can't find anything that's fine. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Very impressive work. Looking forward to passing this once minor issues have been addressed. Freikorp (talk) 03:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy for this to pass now. Well done. Freikorp (talk) 05:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]