Talk:Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album)

Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album) 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: January 3, 2017. (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

Alternative music Mid‑importance

	Rock music portal This article is part of WikiProject Alternative music, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage of articles relating to alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.Alternative musicWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative musicTemplate:WikiProject Alternative musicAlternative music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pop music Mid‑importance

	Pop music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pop music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to pop music 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.Pop musicWikipedia:WikiProject Pop musicTemplate:WikiProject Pop musicPop music articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during rehearsals of the 1982 album Forever Now, producer Todd Rundgren tried to energise The Psychedelic Furs with exploding firecrackers?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/March. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album).

Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I am going to review this article for possible Good Article status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
Really well-done. Hits all the important highlights without devolving into trivia central or general fancruft. I'll be honest, this is probably the first WP article about an album I've ever read, and I think it's terrific.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: }

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
~~Ref #35 is dead.~~
I've added a working archive url for this. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref #48 has an odd redirect...are you sure it is ending up where it needs to be to source that statement? Same with Ref #21.~~
Both of these pointed to 'Charts' tabs on AllMusic which no longer exist. In fact one of the entries was wrong – perhaps that's why the tabs have been taken down! Accordingly I've removed Ref #48, and added a new source for Ref #21. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All of the above issues have been resolved.

C. It contains no original research:
~~Pending the correcting of some referencing issues.~~
Fixed.

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Ran the copyvio tool - no plagiarism found.
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):
Fascinating read - I feel like it was a thriller....will the album get made? Will the band let Flo & Eddie perform? etc.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I know that there are probably improvements that could be made but I'm not seeing them at this time - maybe Wikilinking the term "Gold (record)" to [[Music recording #sales certification for anyone unfamiliar with the term... And I'll be frank with anyone who reads this afterwards, I started on this Review without much enthusiasm, just trying to so some reviews and I picked this one out. I don't know all that much about Rundgren's work as a producer or about The Psychedelic Furs, didn't know that Flo&Eddie/The Turtles sang on this album, and so on. And now I do and now I am a little fascinated with the individuals and this music. Thank you to all the notable contributors to this article, it was a pleasure. Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review! SteveStrummer (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.