Talk:A Different Kind of Truth/GA1

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 23:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi : I'll be reviewing this article. I should have something here within an hour. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


 * OK. So I've gone through the first two sections of the article, and you've done a good job here. Some of the prose was a bit confusing and clunky ("He suggested to Eddie that instead of doing again the guitar to the left speaker and the effects panned to the right, the guitar sound was split naturally instead of electronically using two guitar amplifiers placed far apart."), and there were some weasels ("infamously"), but I've been bold and fixed these myself. There are some issues later in the article, though, the release and packaging to critical reception sections need a bit of a clean-up and re-write, and the commercial performance section needs better quality sources. I'll try and do these tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for having someone finally stepping up to this article - seeing no review for six months played a part in making me lazy and eventually do nothing for the WikiCup. Edited some more based on your clues above. igordebraga ≠ 14:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the vague notes in my last response here. I've been fighting a lung infection for the past week or so, and my brain pretty much pooped out last night. But having worked on the article some more tonight, I believe A Different Kind of Truth now meets GA criteria. You did a great job here, there really wasn't much to do. There are a couple of minor issues with the article (the charts section could do with a bit of a formatting update - I'll do this myself tomorrow; and that sound file of "She's the Woman" really isn't doing either the casual reader or the album itself any favours—30kbps OGG sounds atrocious, 64kbps is the norm for non-free audio clips), but neither of these stand in the way of the article meeting the GA criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Closing

 * 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):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * 1) Overall:

Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)