Talk:The Velvet Underground & Nico/GA1

GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Starting GA reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of July 17, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):
b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):
5 dead links found using this tool. Note AOL, ebay ~~and possibly pitchfork~~ are not RS. Many paragraphs are completely unreferenced.

Pitchfork is most defintiely a reliable source (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums#Review_sites), eBay in this case also seems ok as the paragraph is directly referencing an eBay auction. Cavie78 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pitchfork here is reporting news. The Albums project pages says The following is a list of some websites with reviews or links to reviews that you can use in album infoboxes:.
Sorry but I don't see why you think Pitchfork isn't a reliable source - it's a professional music website cited by lots of FA articles let alone GA. Cavie78 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I misread that at WP:WikiProject Albums as just applying to infoboxes. The source is OK. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
b (citations to reliable sources):
REf #24, #25 are blogs, #15 is a SPS site, as noted above the aol, ebay ~~and pitchfork~~ sites are not RS

Again Pitchfork is RS. The blogs offering downloads (refs 24 and 25) are directly referenced in the paragraph so I can't see a problem with using as a ref in this instance. Rate Your Music may be user generated but the only thing this ref is saying is that the album has been rated #1 for 1967 on the site by users - can't see a problem with this either. Cavie78 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thin ice, is information on Rte Yuor music notable? Jezhotwells (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point actually! Probably should be removed. Cavie78 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See above for Pitchfork, reviews OK in infobox only. I take your point about the blogs, but there may be concerns a essentially these are links to illegal downloads.

Jezhotwells (talk)

Again I don't see why a review would be ok in the infobox if the site itself isn't good enough to satisfy RS. I can see thwe legality issue but the article is reporting that downloads were made available and the link is backing that up. Cavie78 (talk) 08:42, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PLease see my note above, Pitchfork OK, my misreading of Wikiporj Albums, sorry. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:45, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
c (OR):
It is broad in its scope.
a (major aspects):
b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
tagged with rationales
b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
captioned
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold whilst referencing is sorted. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WE still have one dead link {AOL] which is not an RS, also links to a French bootleg site [1], a blog [2], French bootleg site again [3], an ebay auction stored on a non RS [4]. No work has been done on this for a week, so I will delist. When improved this can be brought back to WP:GAN. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]