Talk:So Far, So Good... So What!/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll take this one. Stay tuned.

I'm looking forward to collaborating with the editor with the coolest username. And sorry if the recent changes somehow disrupted the reviewing process.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks, haha. More people seem to like it than are offended by it, which is weird considering how I was warned about it early on... Anyway, sorry I haven't actually started the review yet, for what it's worth it's looking pretty promising. Lazy Bastard Guy 06:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did an overall edit for grammar and tone, but along the way a few things confused me.

This isn't important, but it bothered me a bit - is "proficiency" an objective term?

I agree. It doesn't sound quite neutral. I suggest something like dexterity or efficiency? Which one do you think fits better?

Probably should avoid a reference to this outside of the Reception section. Perhaps we should reference another quality the album has? Lazy Bastard Guy 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only thing that got my eye was the "improved guitar work", but that is just opinion from Mike Stagno of Sputnikmusic, certainly not suitable for the lead. I think we should somehow modify the controversial word so it can fit the lead since it's cited by the majority of the critics.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a good synonym is "ability". It's more neutral and merely implies that one is capable of something wihtout saying to what extent; "proficiency" is too loaded. Lazy Bastard Guy 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The same sentiment of disillusion and nihilism" as their previous album, perhaps?

The book cites the previous two albums, so I put two.

Where is Loon Lake?

The story in Blabbermouth says "MN cemetery". I suppose MN is short name for Minnesota. Unfortunately, there are four lakes in Minnesota with that name.

Do you suppose you could use another source and narrow it down to one of them? Otherwise, we could probably say "near a Loon Lake" or something like that. Lazy Bastard Guy 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sentence should state "near the Loon Lake cemetery in Minnesota". I assume that not all four lakes have cemeteries nearby.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that would work. I mean, if someone wants to come over from WP:Minn to correct us I'm sure it'll be okay. Lazy Bastard Guy 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"...the pair of power ballads turn the tempo into moderate pace." What is this trying to say?

Six of the tracks are performed at fast tempos, while two of them are mid-paced.

In my last edit to the article I attempted to clarify it... did it work? Lazy Bastard Guy 20:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, reads fine.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"However, some problems occurred during the Australian leg of the tour. The band was forced to cancel these shows because of drug issues." Were they able to do any of these shows? If not, then "problems" can be boiled down into one variety - the drug issues that prevented them from playing the shows. In that case, just say, "However, the band were forced to cancel..."

Well, I removed the source which contained an interview with a band member who spoke about that tour. According to his saying, the band was able to perform the rest of the tour dates, but drug issues along with personal conflicts between the band members were the two main reasons for cancelling the concerts.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way it's written still implies that all the dates were canceled. Do you want to put "some of these shows" instead of just "these shows"? Lazy Bastard Guy 00:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start evaluating by the criteria soon, but I wanted to get these out of the way first. Lazy Bastard Guy 19:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All four points have been addressed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the criteria here and I'll make another edit later to evaluate the article.

Is it well-written?

Clear & concise?

Done (that's basically what we were just doing)

Manual of style compliance?

Done

Is it verifiable with no original research?

Is there a list of citations consistent with guidelines?

Done

In-line citations from reliable sources?

Done

No original research?

Done This one's harder to verify considering I don't have the books the article uses as sources, but that's okay. I'll just assume the statements that don't have citations on the end are cited by the closest citation to follow them.

Is it broad in its coverage?

Main aspects?

Done Probably the shortest album article I have yet reviewed. Short, sweet, to the point and it holds your interest. Awesome.

No more detail than needed?

Done Definitely; see previous comment.

Is it neutral? Done

Is it stable? Done No reason to say otherwise.

Does it have images where reasonably expected to have images? Done Only image used is the album cover, and its use is appropriate.

This article definitely passes. It's practically a textbook example of a GA album article - I wouldn't say it's only got the bare minimum of what it needs, but it needs no more than it's got and it's got no less than what's needed. Well done! Lazy Bastard Guy 18:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Must say I'm a big fan of your reviews. Moreover, you're the reviewer that provided the biggest input in my GA nominations.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]