Talk:Crass/GA1

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

I'm sorry to say I'm going to have to fail this GA nomination for now. The article's referencing is currently weak and it needs a fair bit of work, still. There are quite a few unreferenced paragraphs, and there are cases where I'm unclear on how much is actually being cited (eg. "specifically the line "The kids was just crass"[7]" - citing that line or the whole paragraph?). I'm happy to take another look after you've done some more work on this one. Cheers. —Giggy 05:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you really need four citations for the year it formed?
 * Ref placement (WP:FN) is inconsistent; make sure it's either after or before punctuation, but the same throughout.
 * There are a few short paragraphs that could be merged with others or expanded; they don't look great the moment.
 * It's weird to have, for example, a 1984 image in the origins section which talks about an earlier time period.
 * How is in the public domain?
 * The refs need formatting; publishers and accessdates at least (preferably authors and dates too) are needed for web references.

I was hoping to get a more thorough review of the article. Work on refs has to be done, thanks for noting that, but qualifications like "don't look great" and "weird" are subjective to say the least. To answer your points:
 * We've had everything but editwars over the year of formation, even when it was double sourced, so now every available source has been added. That finally stopped the endless "1976 vs 1977" reverts.
 * Ref placement. Will work on that.
 * Which paragraphs are that exactly? Merged OR expanded? Merging them would make other paragraphs very bulky, expanding them would make them woolly. They're to the point and deal with subjects that qualify having their own section, IMHO.
 * Image placement has more to do with page lay out than anything else. Putting images in chronological order would make the page look very messy and cluttered.
 * It simply is. As the article explains, it was released and distributed anonymously, without any restrictions, and it is a derivative work of public domain recordings.
 * Refs again. Talked about that already. Channel &reg;    11:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)