Talk:Who We Are (Lifehouse album)/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
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:

Lead

Lead section does not conform with WP:LEAD. Done

According to WP:LEAD#Introductory text, it says, "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article." It meets this requirement. It also says under the "Relative emphasis" subsection, "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources." Furthermore, it also says under the "Opening paragraph" subsection, "The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what (or who) is the subject." Therefore, it does conform with WP:LEAD. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background and release

Combine release with Reception. Done
Expand section by providing new relevant information. Done

Singles

Move to Background. Combine into one paragraph. Done

Reception

Rename heading to conform with subheadings. Done
Three reviews? Weak. Done

There is nothing in WP:GAC that states anything about having a certain number of reviews. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 01:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Credits and personnel

There is no working reference to support the information in this section; please find another source. Done

Charts

No references for chart information. Done - There are references; you just need to scroll down to see the chart and what number the album peaked on each chart.

References

All references are not properly formatted, and many are inactive. Done

According to WP:CITE#What information to include, under the "Webpages" subsection, citations for World Wide Web pages typically include name of the author(s), title of the article within quotation marks, name of the website, date of publication, page number(s) (if applicable), and the date you retrieved it (required if the publication date is unknown). Therefore, the references are properly formatted. I checked all of the references and they seem to work for me. If some aren't working, you need to be specific with which ones. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 01:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notes in closing

I'm placing this article On hold to allow time for changes. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed all of the issues in this article according to Wikipedia policy. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 01:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comments[edit]

Question 6A: The only image in the article is copyright tagged and it does have a fair use rationale. See File:Who_We_Are_-_Lifehouse.jpg and look at "Other information" under the "Summary" section as it gives the copyrights to the creator. Also, under the "Summary" section it does have a fair use rationale. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question 6B: Images are provided where possible and appropriate, and since there are no captions, it does follow this guideline. - Rp0211 ^(talk2me) 00:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review summary

The article still retains issues within it that currently keep it from reaching GA status. For an album that peaked at number 14 on the Billboard 200 for and subsequently appeared on the charts for an additional 75 weeks, the article is not broad in it's coverage. The prose is lacking throughout and Billboard should only needs referred to once in the subsections where it mentioned. To only have three reviews is not proportional to the number of reviews that are not included. I have no idea when and what other countries the album was released in. There is not even one interview! The references are not up to par and over-linking remains. Mattchewbaca (meow) 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer banned for incivility[edit]

Following the discussion at WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#User:Mattchewbaca I am renominating at the original date. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]