Talk:3×3/GA1

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

This article is being failed for the following reasons:
 * The prose needs better organization. I thought "...wasn't alive when the original EP was released, thereby misunderstanding the parody" was referring to the Rolling Stones EP, for example.  Also, "Collins has often used the group for other projects, including Collins' debut solo album, Face Value" is an aside that probably isn't notable for this article.
 * ✅ and I don't understand why it isn't notable, so I've left it in for now. If I do decide to re-nominate this article, and the other reviewer doesn't want it in, then I'll remove it. CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Needs more discussion of the writing and recording. Also, why were these songs left off Abacab?  Why did they decide to release an EP instead of, say, a single...or nothing at all?
 * It's a three song E.P., it's not like I'll find tons of information on the recording of three songs! :-/ Well, I would assume that Collins, thinking that "Me and Virgil" was a "dog," would want that song left off. The others... I guess they just ran out of space? Who knows? If I would have known and found a source, I would have added it, trust me. CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Unsourced statements:
 * "The title itself is also a nod to The Rolling Stones" – the Allmusic reviewer is not a reliable source for this. It's probably a correct assumption, but a quote from a band member is necessary here.


 * "All of the songs were recorded during sessions for the album Abacab."
 * ✅ this is covered by the bootleg cited in the second sentence, but I'll cite the first sentence anyway.


 * Unreliable sources:
 * Prog Archives – those are user-submitted reviews
 * Connolly & Co
 * discogs.com – a source isn't needed to back up credits printed on the sleeve
 * blogspot.com, monstersandcritics.com, progressiveworld.net – sources not needed for these statements, anyway
 * chartstats.com – try The Complete Book of the British Charts instead (you can find the necessary page on Google Books
 * The bootleg's existence isn't proved by a self-reference, but any reliable source that discusses it would be a good one.
 * OK, about the reviews... this is really an unknown three song E.P., that wasn't released in the United States. Do you know of any free archive U.K. newspapers or music magazines that have reliable source reviews? And also, the bootleg, why would a band member confirm the existence of a bootleg, exactly? I shall remove the references to sources that you say do not need statements. Honestly, I feel like this was a bit of a harsh and an unfair review. You did not take into account that this is a barely known, british E.P. that never saw a release in the United States. In fact, the songs were released on a Live album in the United States, for pete's sake! The amount of information is going to be limited, and I did the best I could to look around for information. Sooner or later I'll take another look at the web for reviews, but really, how much more information can one find for such an unknown E.P.? I'll take a look soon, and re-nominate this, as I feel it didn't get a fair shake. Have a good one. CarpetCrawler (talk) 06:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

These issues will surely take more than a week to address, so the article has to be failed for now. I'd be happy to review again when the article is ready. —Zeagler (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, CarpetCrawler, thanks for commenting. About the reviews: I don't know off the top of my head where you might find some reliable reviews, but that doesn't mean we therefore accept unreliable reviews in a GA.  About the bootleg: I don't see what a band member's mention of it would have to do with anything.  You're using it to show that the songs were recorded at the Abacab sessions, but anybody can put together a bootleg and write whatever they want on the sleeve.  It's not reliable.  About the scarcity of information: articles don't get a pass for treating an obscure subject; we still need to learn about it.  Considering only the reliably sourced information, there just isn't much here.  Look at the "Reader's experience" column at Template:Grading_scheme; which one best applies to this article?  I'd say "C-class". —Zeagler (talk) 10:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)