Talk:Fightstar/GA2

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 11:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Don't feel obligated but I have a music GAN (M2M (band)) if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than bring them up here, I will just fix any minor issues I see myself. If you're unhappy with any of my changes, just revert them and we'll discuss here instead. I'm happy for you to work on any issues I bring up as I bring them up; don't feel the need to wait until I finish the entire review. Freikorp (talk) 11:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I'm really happy with how this article is looking. My one remaining issue is now the second paragraph in the lead. I think it's too long and could be split, probably at "The band announced an extended hiatus". Once that and the redirects and dead references are fixed this should be good to go. I do highly recommend archiving all links to avoid the article losing its status in the future. Personally I am now in the habit of archiving all URLs prior to GA nomination. Freikorp (talk) 22:13, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Lead
 * "Since then, their four studio albums have obtained top 40 chartings and critical praise" - i'm not sure if I like this style, as in, you're skipping ahead with an overview of all albums then commenting on each one in the following paragraph. I feel like the lead should flow entirely in chronological order. Feel free to correct me if this style is commonly used.
 * "Following They Liked You Better When You Were Dead," - I think this might be better if you just said somethign along the lines of "The year after their debut EP", since their EP has a rather long-winded title.
 * "The album was regarded by one critic" - I think you should specify who that is in the lead.
 * Okay, if you want this, do you want the author's name, or just the magazine title? I believe it was Kerrang! who said that.  danny music editor  Speak up! 12:55, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Both, as in "John Smith from Kerrang! stated ...". Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to mention that his pop career was with Busted in the lead.
 * History
 * "meaning the record was ineligible for the UK Singles Chart" - can you explain why this made it inelligible? What is the rule reagarding the number of tracks?
 * I have no idea. This was already in the article and I thought it was just something I didn't know. Ironically enough, I, as the nominator, am American - not the typical Fightstar fan. I've figured out the Billboard Charts, but not the UK yet. Update: I have found rules for singles and albums. This here is a difficult situation - it is an EP; not a single-EP kind of mashup, but it actually has about 6 different tracks on it, not long enough for an album though. I'm unsure which rules cover it, as neither of them mention anything about extended plays. I think it may have been treated as a "single" entity where only the EP itself was allowed to chart and not the songs from it.  danny music editor  Speak up! 18:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "covering such places as Australia" - I don't like this wording; 'places' sounds a bit vague. Perhaps change it to 'countries including Australia'.
 * There's no indication in the prose as to why you've piped Execution van to "Chinese human meat wagons".
 * LOL. Good catch. Will do.  danny music editor  Speak up! 13:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what, Fightstar's music video for "Deathcar" actually has someone being executed in a van, and China does that a lot, so I could see why someone put that there at first, but maybe it's not an appropriate link.  danny music editor  Speak up! 13:27, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, well, now that it is un-piped it isn't clear what a Chinese human meat wagons is, or again why that term is used. I suggest just calling it an execution van and linking it accordingly. Freikorp (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "whilst also debuting at number two" - perhaps mention it debuted and peaked at this position.
 * "Fightstar decided to put out their new album" - suggest replacing the word "new" as per WP:REALTIME
 * Not overly important, but do you know how Abidi broke his wrist? Readers will probably be curious. I am.
 * There's not even a full page of Google results on this topic. Plenty of them are reliable, but none of them elaborate, other than the fact that it occurred halfway through the album's recording.  danny music editor  Speak up! 18:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * "The reception for the single was extremely positive, with the song reaching the A List on the Radio 1 Playlist" - since you've only got one source backing this up, I think calling the reception "extremely positive" is a bit of a stretch. I suggest finding more prositive reviews or instead adding a specific review naming the author and publication - i.e. John Doe from the BBC said it was ....
 * "although he stated the band will continue to tour " - which band?
 * "Following this announcement, Tom Bryant of teamrock.com explained" - is explained the correct term to use here? Is this an undisputed fact or just the author's opinion? If it's an opinion, I suggest you use "said" or "stated" as per WP:WORDS.
 * Musical style and influence
 * No issues.
 * Band members
 * I'd never heard the term "unclean vocals" before. I note when typed into Wikipedia it redirects to "Screaming (music)". I suggest at the very least you wikilink it to that. It may be confusing for readers.
 * It does sometimes get used, especially with bands which often balance them with clean vocals (singing). It's mostly a term used by enthusiasts of post-hardcore and heavy metal. An IP added this originally and I thought I'd let it slide. A link sounds like a good idea.  danny music editor  Speak up! 13:10, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * Checklinks finds many problems that need to be fixed:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * That is probably a good idea and I'll do my best to teach myself that. I think I have addressed everything in the meantime.  danny music editor  Speak up! 23:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks good. I'm happy for this to pass. Congrats. Freikorp (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2017 (UTC)