Talk:Animals (Pink Floyd album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this page against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Checking against GA criteria

 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose):
 * In Recording we have Recording took place at Britannia Row, from April to December 1976, and also into early 1977. In Packaging we have The album was completed in December 1976, and work began on its cover. In Release we have Animals was released on 23 January 1977. These can't all be correct.
 * Povey, which I view as the most reliable source with regard to dates, claims that there were discontinuous recording sessions between April to December, and "Work here continued throughout the rest of the year and into early 1977". Blake (packaging) claims that the album was finished by Christmas.  I think that Blake is probably just saying "largely complete", and the work early in 1977 was probably equalising levels, completing the final mixdown, copying masters, etc.  I'll remove the date from "The album was completed in Dec 1976". Parrot of Doom 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Packaging: Unfortunately inclement weather delayed shooting, and O'Rourke had neglected to book the marksman for a second day. Who is O'Rourke? He doesn't seem to be mentioned before.
 * Fixed, it was Steve O'Rourke Parrot of Doom 18:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references):
 * Background: 1976 was a period in Britain's history dominated by industrial action, racial violence, high inflation, and high unemployment.  Can you cite that?
 * Already cited by Schaffner pp194–196 Parrot of Doom 18:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, just my memory playing up, thought that the racial violence came later. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * b (citations to reliable sources):
 * Ref #18 should be cited to Mojo directly rather thane neptunepinkfloyd. The latter is just a convenience link.
 * True, but we should always cite the first instance of what we read. While I trust NPF is a reliable source (although it might not pass FAC), I think its better to cite that page, until somebody can check the issue of Mojo quoted to see if its correct. Parrot of Doom 18:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll buy that.
 * c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its scope.
 * 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:
 * OK, just a few concerns above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing those - I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks :) Parrot of Doom 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * OK, just a few concerns above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing those - I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks :) Parrot of Doom 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, just a few concerns above. On hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for fixing those - I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks :) Parrot of Doom 19:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)