Talk:Barrett (album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will take on this review. It is my first GA review of an album (I usually do biology related ones), but I'm quite familiar with Pink Floyd and Syd Barrett, so I think it'll be al-right. FunkMonk (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referring to Pink Floyd as merely "Floyd" strikes me as fan jargon. Seems comparable to for example referring to Led Zeppelin as "Zeppelin", and it may not be appropriate encyclopaedic language.
  • Maybe the intro should say "Pink Floyd's guitarist David Gilmour", since unfamiliar readers may not realise what instrument he played, as only bass is mentioned here.
  • On the same note, why is "Richard Wright (on keyboard)" in parenthesis, while "Jerry Shirley on drums" is not?
  • Two remasters are mentioned in the intro, shouldn't it be "A newly remastered version was released in 2010" then?
  • In the release section, only the 2010 release is labelled as a "remaster".
  • A few of Barrett's eccentricities are mentioned throughout the article, but wouldn't it be good for unfamiliar readers to mention under "background" that his mental health was deteriorating at this time, so that they are placed in the right context?
  • Could the following sentence be more specific with the year?: "The album was reissued in the early 1970s"
  • The following has no bearing on this article passing here or not, but on for example the GA London Calling, singles are mentioned in the infobox, and there are some fair use samples. Maybe that kind of stuff could be implemented here too?
  • Could more of the (important) footnotes perhaps be incorporated into the article? I for one rarely care to look at footnotes, so it would be sad if you felt some of it was interesting, but rarely read.
  • This image could use an info template on Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Abbey_road_studios.jpg
 Done. Re:London Calling point, no singles have been released from the album (shame really, as most of it is pretty good, IMO). I'd say the use of samples isn't that important for Barrett (though, I've been meaning to add an "Octopus" sample to Madcaps). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, perhaps this fact (no singles) should be mentioned then? FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As for samples, could be nice for "colour", but again, isn't required. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused what to do with the Commons photo? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 21:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean like this random example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aerial_photograph_of_Maiden_Castle_from_the_west,_1937.jpg The Abbey Road image has no template with source info. FunkMonk (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence could maybe be rephrased, as it reads a little odd: "Wolfpack" one of Barrett's favourites, out of all his material, he mentioned in an interview.
 Done Will work on footnotes at the end of the review. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there bonus tracks on the 2010 release? Or was the track list unchanged?
There weren't any, (again, shame really) it was a reissue of the 1993 edition (albeit in remastered form). Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And now that's it from me! FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I've moved the more important information into the article. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 22:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed all the issues raised, does the album get to pass now? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 23:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was away over the weekend. Nice article, and I hope you'll work on more like it. Shame it took so long before this one got reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 04:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Thanks for the compliment, and the reivew. I've already done Syd's first album, and the early Floyd ones (pre-Dark Side, basically), but I do have some solo Beatle albums at GAN, if you're up for reviewing them? Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 15:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Barrett_(album)/GA1&oldid=536530549"