Talk:Motion City Soundtrack/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Kees08 (talk · contribs) 17:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Starting the nomination, will begin review today.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
First paragraph of Breakthrough and success (2003–06) needs a hefty rewrite. Some sentences are really bad (followed by the Warped Tour 2003).

The entire article needs a thorough copy-edit.

Performed complete copy-edit. Please double check my work if you have the time. Kees08 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Lead section
Expand lead section so it is three to four paragraphs.

Beg to differ, my article on Fall Out Boy was only two and it was just fine. Also see New Model Army, The Chariot and BFMV. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 13:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Counterpoint: I counted the number of characters in the intro vs the rest of the ratio, and created a ratio. Results:

FOB Ratio: 18.5

NMA Ratio: 8.1

BFMV Ratio: 8.4

The Chariot Ratio: 9.5

MCS Ratio: 16.0

Ratio was taken by dividing # of characters in body of article by the # of characters in the title.

Conclusion: MCS intro needs to be expanded. FOB was a bit of an anomalous datapoint because it was twice as big as the next closest (MCS). I could go into it more, but I think this should be sufficient proof. Let me know if you want to further discuss, thanks! Kees08 (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kees08, the GA criteria state that the article should follow the MOS lead guidelines; part of that page, WP:LEADLENGTH gives the standards for numbers of paragraphs in an article. This article has 20474 prose characters—the guideline is based on prose characters—and for articles of between 15k and 30k prose characters, the guideline is for "two or three paragraphs". The rest of the page gives guidance on what should be included and at what level of detail, so if you feel there are particular sections of the article that should be represented in the lead that aren't (or are but need a bit more representation), by all means request it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Layout
Layout style is similar to other GA for bands.

Words to watch
Several instances of this, weasel words, clarification needed, specific timeframes. They are all tagged in the article.

Fiction
N/A

List incorporation
Lists reflect style of other GAs for bands.
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:
The article is well cited.
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:
Added a couple of citation needed tags. Please address.

Other than that, sources were reputable, and overall the article is well sourced.
C. It contains no original research:
No original research is contained in this article.
D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Copyright Vio Detector found nothing significant, I did not either.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
The article stays within scope.
B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
The article stays focused on the topic.
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
The article is neutral and without editorial bias.
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Mostly stable, only issue is folks changing the wording such that the band is no longer together when they are on tour. Full disclosure, I have been reverting those edits until they are officially not on tour. I don't think that is a big enough issue not to pass the article, but if an independent reviewer disagrees, just let me know.
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:
All are tagged with either own work or Flickr licenses.
B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
All images have appropriate captions (succinct and descriptive).
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
General comment: article needs an extensive copyedit, there were some pretty clear grammar issues that stuck out right away (like two periods in a row, or a sentence fragment with no capital letter to start).

@DannyMusicEditor: @Yeepsi: @Saginaw-hitchhiker:

Hey guys, where are we at on this? I don't think it would be too much work to get it to GA status, but if it doesn't start moving I'll have to close the nomination. Let me know what the plan is, thanks! I can help make edits if needed. Kees08 (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, I think you might've mistagged me and Danny – we (along with Saginaw) were working on California (Blink-182 album) as a team nom, not MCS. Yeepsi (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Yeepsi: Sorry, I know (think?) you dig this music so I just was seeing if you were interested in helping. No worries! Kees08 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's right about me tho. I did do a few things here, but not a lot. Ask Saginaw about this. I honestly don't have the time to expand the lead, and there are other things in here that I think I could fix but I have other things I'm working on right now, as I've got something at FLC at the moment. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:31, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll see what Saginaw says and we'll go from there. Thanks! Kees08 (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kees08, it's been over three weeks since your last post, and no significant edits have been made to the article. The review is now at the point that it should either be closed—it can always be renominated once the issues raised have been addressed—or a final deadline for progress be set. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Sorry, I was prepping for a trip and am just now getting back into this. I'll look at this now and see if we are close enough. Otherwise I will close it.Kees08 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read the rationale for the lead section, looks good to me. I'm going to give this one week for the remaining items (will try to work on it as well) before I close the nomination. Kees08 (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DannyMusicEditor: @Saginaw-hitchhiker:

Home stretch! Lead section is fine, I was wrong before. Performed a copy edit. Last things needed are a couple of citations and clarifications (all tagged in article). There is one thing in addition to that. In the plot, there is a bar for studio albums. That is not used at all. It should either be incorporated into the chart, or removed from the legend, I don't care which. Kees08 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hey guys, thanks so much for the help! i haven't been present as much recently. great to see this passed. thanks to you both for your hard work. @DannyMusicEditor: @Kees08: Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, no problem. Look forward to doing more GA music reviews, have a couple I am eyeing now. Kees08 (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]