Talk:10 Songs for the New Depression/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: none found.

Hi. I'll be reviewing this album for GA. I'll try to have the review finished within the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * It's well written and follows MoS standards.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All of the cited information can be found in the sources, all of which are reliable.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * It is focused and broad in its coverage.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * No bias. Mentions both negative and positive aspects (e.g., in reviews).
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No problems with stability.
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * The album cover image has a proper rational, while the Kruger image is in Wikipedia Commons.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Congratulations. This is a well-written, well-rounded, well-cited article, and I am happy to pass it. Moisejp (talk) 20:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Copied from Another Believer's talk page for future reference: Hello, Another Believer. I have just finished reviewing 10 Songs for the New Depression and am happy to say it has passed. Congratulations! There are a couple of little points that didn't affect the outcome, but that I thought you might want to look at. One is that almost all of the magazine and newspaper references have ISSN numbers, but a couple of them don't. For consistency you might want to include the numbers for all of them or none of them. It's up to you, though. The other little thing I noticed: well, there may be different opinions about this out there, but some people prefer to have the lead be only a summary of the article and not include any "new" information, and not have any reference numbers (i.e., the reference number instead appears with the info the lead is summarizing, in the main body of the text). I noticed your information in the lead that the album "released forty years following his first studio album" and that it was released in July 2010 only appears in the lead (and in the info box), not in the main body of the text. Also, from perusing the various sources, I gathered that while British folks can get it through Proper Records, in the States it's available through his website. Would that be something to highlight? Perhaps you could add a small "Release" section, or change "Reception" to "Release and reception", or something. You could fit the release date, the fact that it was released forty years after his first album, and the fact that in the States it was mostly available through his website (or through import?), nice and succinctly in a few sentences there. Anyhow, again, it's up to you—just an idea! Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:26, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking the time to offer a review and suggestions. Much appreciated! -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)