Talk:A Weekend in the City/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Hello all. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. Right now, I'm planning on finishing my initial review today. Check back for my analysis. Tim meh  ! ( review me ) 17:03, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can I just thank you in advance for this review being undertaken so quickly? I appreciate it :D GARDEN  18:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I did correct several minor formatting errors, but there was nothing major wrong with these areas.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * My concern about missing citations is shown below in the other comments section.
 * 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:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, the article looks great. It was a good read, and I didn't have to fix much to bring it up to MOS standards. The references are good too. I'll pass the article as soon as my concern about the missing citations in the Bonus tracks and Other formats sections is addressed. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I have passed the article and promoted it GA. Good luck on it in the future. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Overall, the article looks great. It was a good read, and I didn't have to fix much to bring it up to MOS standards. The references are good too. I'll pass the article as soon as my concern about the missing citations in the Bonus tracks and Other formats sections is addressed. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations. I have passed the article and promoted it GA. Good luck on it in the future. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Other comments
I have read the lead section so far, and many of those citations are not needed. The citations for album sales and chart positions are redundant to the chart sales section and should be removed. Also, unless there's a direct quote, citations aren't needed for claiming what kind of reception the album got. Save those for the appropriate section in the article. Although the wording of the lead is good, many of the citations are not needed and are just redundant to those in the rest of the article. The lead section is supposed to summarize the article and show its importance, not present extra information. Tim meh  ! ( review me ) 21:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DONE. Rafablu88 (talk) 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There aren't any sources referenced in the Bonus tracks or Other formats sections. Tim meh  ! ( review me ) 23:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There were only 1000 copies of the limited edition picture disc LP released. There still is no source for this statement. You're going to need one, or the sentence has to be removed. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 23:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * DONE. Rafablu88 (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)