Talk:Eternal Pyre/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Canniba loki 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance:
You really need to use Template:Track listing? The chart positions should be organized according WP:CHARTS, not to mention the spelling errors like "Hit pardade" and "Sweddish chart". 5,000 copies were released exclusively through Hot Topic chain stores in the United States and copies were also available in Germany, Finland and Sweden on June 23. Nuclear Blast Records released a further 7" vinyl picture disc version limited to one thousand copies on June 30. This paragraph should not be in the section "reception and release"? Also, the section title should not be "release and reception"?

Since there is more than four fields in the track listing, it should not just be a simple track list. I don't see anything wrong with how the charts are organized, they're alphabetical. Since the section is entitled release and reception (which is normal), it contains information on its release.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
What makes an user review at Sputnikmusic reliable?

Removed

C. No original research:
Originally, it was thought that the extended play would feature a live version of "Dead Skin Mask" ~~instead of the live version of "War Ensemble", and also was thought to have featured~~ the "Live Intrusion" video, described as "a five-minute clip of the Slayer fan who carved the band's name into his forearm."
What's wrong with this?
You're taking information from two sources and combining them together to form a new conclusion. That's original research. I don't really like the rule, but you have to go with it. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
The album charted on two different charts: number forty-eight on the Swedish charts, and number two on the Finnish charts. According to swisscharts.com, the EP charted on four countries.

Done

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The album was not well received by critics, with few critics actually reviewing the album. [...] Eternal Pyre generally not received well by critics, with few professionals actually reviewing the album. [...] The extended play was, however, generally well-received by fans, despite having a limited number of copies available. This is not just your opinion?

That's just a summary of what everyone says and how it was received.

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
As I said before, good article candidacy is not a substitution for peer review.--Canniba loki 13:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Failed for reasons below. _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Despite being short, I think the article is too poorly written to have been nominated for good article candidacy.--Canniba loki 12:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 9 [Sputnikmusic] is not a reliable source, because the review was not written by a staff. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 18:18, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the ref and information. CrowzRSA 18:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doing...--Canniba loki 12:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Canniba loki 12:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments[edit]

I still see the mentioned spelling errors, the lack of compliance with WP:CHARTS, a dead reference (#7), inconsistent date formats in references, and prose issues ("Originally, it was thought that..." -> The sentence implies that the original "thought" was wrong, yet every prediction made turned out correct. This needs to be clarified.) Since this has gone on for much more than a week with no substantial change, I'm going to have to fail this, and join Cannibaloki in highly recommending that you get a WP:Peer review done before attempting to go for a GAN. Until then, good luck! _EricLeb⁰¹ (Page | Talk) 00:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]