Talk:Pushing the Senses/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
In the Recording and production section, "Frontman Grant Nicholas said he didn't think the album needed them" ---> "Frontman Grant Nicholas said he did not think the album needed them", per WP:CONTRACTION. Same section, "Grant said the album as a whole does have a retro sound to it, but didn't want to" ---> "Grant said the album as a whole does have a retro sound to it, but did not want to". Same section, ""Tumble and Fall", which became the album's first single, seen Grant describe the recording process as 'old fashioned'", is "seen" the right word? Same section, either add quotations for "...and once said that he don't rate himself as a piano player" or summarize the quote in your own words. In the Songs section, "Tumble and Fall", the third track on Pushing the Senses, was chosen as its lead single because the band didn't want to start off" ---> "Tumble and Fall", the third track on Pushing the Senses, was chosen as its lead single because the band did not want to start off". Same section, ""Tumble and Fall" and left off the album as the band felt it wouldn't fit in with its general feel" ---> ""Tumble and Fall" and left off the album as the band felt it would not fit in with its general feel".

Done Spiderone 16:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
In the lead, it might be best to link "United Kingdom" once. Also in the lead and throughout the article, "Q Magazine" ---> "Q magazine". Throughout the article, link "Fran Healy", "mixing", and "PIAS" to their correspondence articles. In the Recording and production section, the quote in the third paragraph is far too large, see WP:MOSQUOTE. The quote in the Songs section is long as well. "The song was written at home, as soon as I had that intro, the vocal “woo who” bit – what ever you want to call it – that was a really important hook for the song" ---> "The song was written at home, as soon as I had that intro, the vocal 'woo who' bit – what ever you want to call it – that was a really important hook for the song." Also, the hyphens needs to be dashes. In the Critical reception section, "Feeder are in danger of being a schizophrenic band, unrecognisable from their once “trademark” sound and prone to style swings on a whim" ---> "Feeder are in danger of being a schizophrenic band, unrecognisable from their once 'trademark' sound and prone to style swings on a whim". Same section, italicize "The Guardian" and "Kerrang!", since one is a newspaper and the other is a magazine. Same section, you might want to remove "well-known", since its a peacock term. Same section, in the BBC review, the songs "Feeling A Moment", "Tumble And Fall", "Pilgrim Soul", and "Pushing the Senses" should not be in quotations withing a quote, instead they should be 'Feeling A Moment', 'Tumble And Fall', 'Pilgrim Soul', and 'Pushing the Senses'.

Done Spiderone 16:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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:
There's six dead links. The link titles in References 9, 23, 26, and 28 are not supposed to be in all capitals, per here. In the lead, the Q magazine comment, "finally establish Feeder as major league players", the source should be mentioned after the quote has concluded, per here. The Guardian, Teraz Rock, and Billboard need to be italicized in the source.

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):

C. It contains no original research:
Are Feeder Scrap Book, Toazted.com, Faceculture, and Rocklist.net reliable sources?

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
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):
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 non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
File:Pushing The Senses.jpg has a weak FUR.

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
This article is in need of a lot of work. But, if the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 16:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to fail the article, since its a week since the GA review. If the statements above can be addressed, then the article may be renominated for GA. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 19:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the album cover image, File:Pushing The Senses.jpg, I've replaced the existing fair use rationale with a new one using the "album cover fur" template, which should address that concern. — Mudwater^(Talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]