Talk:Go! Pop! Bang!/GA1

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I am starting a Good Article review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Review comments
There were some pretty simple bugs in the wording that I was able to fix. Overall it is pretty well done but I find the wording in some places to be a bit towards being an insider conversation amongst people who already are immersed in this stuff rather than an article which seeks to inform those who aren't. This is just a vague overall comment at this point, requesting a closer look in this respect. North8000 (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * One area which I think needs a bit more explanation and sourcing is the M.I.A involvement.  In this initial sentence, "Recording started in 2008, with mentor and label boss M.I.A. at hand. M.I.A. took a pivotal role in recording at first, helping produce and write tracks while bringing in hip-hop producer Arabian Prince and dance music veteran Egyptian Lover to help record the album" is a crucial sentence, yet is not well explained or sourced.   The article should explain what "label boss" means here (it was not apparent to dummy me at the M.I.A article) And if it is a strong claim, it should be sourced.  Later in the article we keep seeing presuming-fragments on M.I.A.'s involvement as if it had already been explained, but it really hasn't been explained very much.  A couple more sentences summarizing M.I.A.'s relation to the album would help much.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Another example to clarify would be "while Bangladesh focused on 808s"  The plural on the model number of a drum machine presumably it means something (e.g. beat, sound, etc.) created with the drum machine. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Overall, I have some concerns regarding this article. Most are related to "insider to insider" type wording, which relates to some lack of clarity/explanation. There is a lot that is "borderline" in this areas which could still (just) pass if it was only that. (And I fixed a few myself where someone like myself without expertise or handy sources is able to do so.) But not so when combined with some more clearly-at-issue areas which  I noted. The would be easy to fix for someone who has been editing here, but have sat open for 10 days with no response. More time is OK, but I wanted to note this now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going once. North8000 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going twice. it's been about 17 days now with no response. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going three times. It's been 19 days with no response.  I am non-passing this article.  See above for more detail.   The issues on the article would be solvable if there was an editor involved in this process, but there is not. Sincerely,  North8000 (talk) 15:05, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

GA criteria
Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
 * Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Illustrated, if possible, by images


 * Meets this criteria. Has 3 images, the one non-free image has an article-specific use rationale. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2012 (UTC)