Talk:My Delirium/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I have begun to review the article. -shirulashem^(talk) 20:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article looks good. It's well-written, the references check out, coverage seems to be ok, no neutrality issues, no edit wars, has appropriate pics, etc. Second Opinion request is because this is my first GA review, so I just want to be sure. Thanks. -shirulashem^(talk) 00:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi shirulashem. I'm sorry I don't have time right now for a thorough review and intricate details on how the article can satisfy the GA criteria. However, I've quickly skimmed over the article, and I found a few issues. Mainly, the prose could be better. The structure of some of the sentences is odd, and the sections don't flow into each other very well. Also, I see very little information actually relating to the writing process in that section. Where and when was the song written/recorded? The second paragraph in that section seems like it doesn't belong, and it may not belong in the article at all.

I can't see where the genres in the infobox are coming from. It looks like they don't have a cited source, and they're going to need at least two or three total. That could possibly be included in a musical and lyrical style section. Also, all the "#" symbols should just be shown as "number".

I suggest taking a look at Wikipedia:Good article criteria to see if it meets all the criteria there. If you feel it does after the issues I addressed are taken care of, feel free to pass the article. Right now, though, I think it should be put on hold, as there are some major issues. Don't hesitate to ask for even another opinion as well, possibly from someone who has time to provide a more thorough analysis. I hope my quick review helped. Good luck! Tim meh 00:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Timmeh. The genres are relics from before I started working on the article, I'll look for sources now. The use of '#' instead of number has been fixed. As for the prose, I'll run through it again and look for a copyeditor. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Also, I hope you're not taking offense from my criticisms. I'm sure you're a great article writer, and I admit I may be a bit overly idealistic. That's another reason I suggested another opinion, as shirulashem's opinion and mine differed so much. Anyway, let me know when you're finished working on it and I'll take another look to see if I can find anything else that needs fixing. Tim meh 23:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Barring contacting Ladyhawke herself, I cannot find any more information on where and when this song was written. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 12:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just include as much as you have, and that will be fine. Tim meh 15:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status: Waiting for this issue to be addressed regarding the second paragraph. -shirulashem^(talk) 16:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph moved to the critical reception section. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 21:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]