Talk:Crowded House/GA1

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria
In order to uphold the quality of Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of August 17, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

As the artcile is almost entirely unreferenced, i am going to delist immediately. major contributors and projects will be notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC) I have renominated the article to be reviewed for good article status--Mutley (talk) 07:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * This artcile could do with some serious copy-editing, the prose is very choppy, possibly thye reult of a lot of seperate editors over time. I would judge that it is borderline as to whether it meets the GA criteria. Clumsy and repetitive phrasing. Please go thorugh it line by line.
 * Examples: The album sold well internationally, in contrast to its American success.  What on earth is that supposed to mean?
 * These recording sessions were combined with songs from the earlier sessions yielded Woodface. missing pronoun
 * In June 1987, the album finally climbed to the top of the Australian charts at #1, taking the place from Whispering Jack by John Farnham after several weeks in the position ????
 * Mixture of past and present tense and a tendency to verge on weasel words. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Mutley (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * ref # 3is a sort of wiki, little evidence of editorial control, this has been discussed several times ta the RS noticeboard, not a reliable source; ref #5 is someone's personal web page, not a RS; ref #7  doesn't mention Crowded House; ref #10  is a dead link; ref #11 amazon is not a RS for casting, IMdB could be good for casting details; ref #13  is a dead link; ref #14 redirects top  which doesn't support the statement; ref #15  doesn't mention Crowded House; ref #16  leads to a 404 page; ref #17 is a dead link; ref #18  leads to a blank page; The latter part of the article has hardly any references. As it is almost entirely unreferenced, I am going to delist immediately.
 * ✅--Mutley (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail: