Talk:Worship Music (album)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: L1A1 FAL (talk · contribs) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
My only concern was the list of chart positions, but I believe that it is ok in this context.
Yes, it seems okay now. The Brave Words cite was moved at the top of the table, since all of the chart positions were sourced with that ref.

Hey L1, I was thinking if you could paraphrase the Caggiano statement in the 'Touring'? The Scott Ian quote in the 'Background' (5th paragraph–December 8, 2010) could also be paraphrased.
I was thinking about either knocking that quote out completely or trimming it way down when I was toying with that section last night. I'll have to take a look at the other quote that you mentioned.

Update I eliminated the Caggiano statement, as I feel it didn't add anything of value. I turned Ian's statement into regular prose.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
Citations should be more consistently formatted; Author names, websites, dates, publishers (when available) etc. I know you know what to do there. There are a couple sources in other languages, and they should probably be tagged in the citation. There are a number of dead links that need fixed. As of this revision those are cites #4, 18, 23, 43, 44 and 45
I've formatted the references, placing the author's name if given in the source, and updated the current links. Also added the date when the information was published. All of the dead links were either replaced or updated, after which I've removed the "dead link" templates.

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
It appears to be neutrally written. The only concern I have is if there is any negative reaction to the album.
I have completely re-written this section because it had too many quotations. This articles was one of my very first attempts to summarize a critical reception of an album, and now I see how lousy my writing style was back then. Added some negative comments from Popmatters and partially from IGN. Added a few opinions from the newspapers listed in the box, which makes it a better read now, I suppose.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
I don't see anything that indicates frequent large changes to content.
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:
Are there any images that could possibly be added? Perhaps pics of Dan Nelson and/or Joey Belladonna?
I was thinking of incorporating an image of Scott Ian, or John Dette if possible, since they were the members discussed in the 'touring' section. I'll see what we have on Commons.
I'd avoid a pic of Dette. He's a minor part in relation to the album. Both Belladonna and Nelson are entwined with the album's history though. Ian certainly would be as well though.
Couldn't decide which member to pick, so went with the entire band at the Big Four tour.
Is there one available from later than 2010?
Good catch, haven't noticed that the image was before the album was released. Replaced with a fresher one from 2014.
what about this one from 2013? You can see the album artwork behind the band. the only thing that concerns me about it is the copyright status, but I think its okay. Here is a good one of Belladonna, too.
Copyright on that image is fine. Bad caption though. --erachima talk 19:12, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The caption was slightly re-worded too.
Ok, great!
Overall:
Pass or Fail: