Talk:Green Day/GA2

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

GA Criteria
 * GA review (see here for criteria)

Reviewer: Guerillero &#124; My Talk   00:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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:
 * 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:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I will try my hand at this and get a mentor. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   00:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Prose/MOS
Everything that was wrong with the prose from the last time this article went through a GA review looks done. The prose appears to be smooth and easily readable. In addition, there seems to be no huge copyeditng issues that jump out at me; however, copyediting is not my strenth. As far as MOS issues goes, the only issue I can find does not need to be corrected for GA status. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sourcing Issues
1. Dead links
 * Ref #32
 * Ref #60
 * Ref #72
 * Ref #75

2. Redirect Issues
 * Ref #30 needs to go to the exact page (Warning Review) not the general album review page.
 * Ref #33 has a similar problem. The exact webpage needs to be linked to.
 * Ref #62 is another one of those rolling stone pages that lead to the general listing of articles.

3. The Green Day Story link needs to say that it is an .rpm file

4. Link titles needed or need to be check
 * Ref #13
 * Ref #17
 * Ref #53
 * Ref #54

--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   23:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * For future information, some sections rely on Green Day Authority, a fan site, and may be challenged as a secondary source. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   17:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Media Issues
--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   01:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) No fair use criteria for this article on Basket Case1.ogg
 * 2) No fair use criteria for this article on Working Class Hero.ogg
 * 3) Media is "sandwiching" text in the Breakthrough success section Note: Compliance with MOS:IMAGES is not required for Good Article status - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 10:46, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Billie Joe Woodstock.jpg is from AP and is barred from wikipedia per WP:NFC

Comments
Hey! Thank you for reviewing the article. That takes a ton of work and I really appreciate it. I will certainly try to fix the dead links and the link titles, as well as look for another source instead of Green Day Authority. I am a little busy this week with my exams, but I will do my best. Maybe I could recruit some help from other wikipedians. Thanks again! Oh and a side question, isn't the Billie Joe Woodstock picture okay because it is an image used for critical commentary on the concert discussed in the article? Basilisk4u (talk) 04:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was exam week for me too so I was a bit busy. From what I can see from the different MOSes no images that come from wire services can be used on wikipedia. The green day authority citations work for right now but i don't think they will if this article ever goes through a FA review. I am going to put this review on hold until 27 December, at the very earliest, for improvements. If it improves by then I will change the quality level of the article. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   20:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have been working a lot with the dead links, but there are a few that I cannot find anywhere. Also, I am not exactly sure what the "Green Day Story" link is, could you show it to me?  I really want this article to pass, but I am a bit worried I cannot find some of the needed links. However, I was able to make a lot of improvements on the other problems, which I hope will be taken into consideration. Thank you and sorry about the dead links, I will search for them far and wide. Basilisk4u (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Greeday story is this

The Green Day Story (Broadcast on Radio 1 Mon June 20, 2005) (Alternate Link) It is in the notes section.

As far as dead links go they don't all need to be replaced if they are truly dead. The links that need the most attention are the pesky rolling stone links that go to the main review page. The other links can be see through archive.org. (If i can get the site to load through my net connection I will post the links. I agree the article has progressed by leaps and bounds. I am very impressed. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   02:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it so the link says that it is an rpm file. I was able to find one of the Rolling Stone links (#76), but I'm still having trouble with number 61. I have tried to look for the information from other sources, but they all cite the rolling stone source which has disappeared for some reason, which is a total bummer. Thank you for noticing the improvements, a lot of people have worked hard on the article, it really means a lot.  If there are any more improvements I can make to the article before you make your decision, please do not hesitate to ask.  Cheers!  Basilisk4u (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am stuck. This article is fairly close to being a GA. The prose brings up no glaring problems when running through MS Word and flows well. The images have been cleaned up. The only problem is the sourcing. I need a second opinion. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   23:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello! I understand you want a second opinion regarding the sources, and I'm here to oblige. I'll have a good look, and I'll be back within 24 hours with said opinion. Sorry to keep you waiting! - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 19:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. If I can drag out this to almost a full month then an extra 24 hours isn't going to hurt. cheers --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   19:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Whoops, late as always! I've had a good look at the sourcing, and below are the problems I found with the sources; not all of them are relevant to a Good Article discussion, so there is also a bit about what needs to be done. (Please note: I am referring to this version of the article)


 * Reference 1 doesn't really need to be in the lead; the date of the band's formation is covered later in the article, and is referenced there as well
 * Reference 2 doesn't mention either of the two statements that supposedly use it as a source
 * Reference 3 doesn't mention the worldwide sales, only the US sales
 * References 6 and 7 are the same
 * References 9 and 10 don't mention Sean Hughes at all. Also, both feature a web address as plain text rather than as a link
 * References 13 and 18 are the same
 * Reference 21 appears to be broken
 * The statement "In 2000, Green Day released Warning, a step further in the style that they had hinted at with Nimrod." is an opinion, and so should be sourced or removed
 * Reference 28 is dead
 * The first paragraph of the section 'American Idiot and renewed success: 2003–2006' is controversial and completely unsourced
 * Reference 31 is broken
 * The statement before reference 33 states that the Viewer's Choice award is "coveted"; this is an unsourced opinion
 * Reference 35 doesn't support the statement that supposedly uses it as a source
 * The statement "(the record has been since been beaten by Foo Fighters' 2007 hit "The Pretender" which reigned at the top spot for 18 weeks)" is a statistic and therefore requires a source
 * Reference 38 doesn't actually contain the quote that uses it as a source, but instead contains a slightly different version
 * Reference 41 is a YouTube link, but the reference description does not say this
 * References 44 and 45 don't mention average ratings, but are instead individual ratings
 * Reference 61 is dead
 * References 70 and 71 don't mention December, despite the month being used in the article
 * The section "The reviews of American Idiot: The Musical have been positive to mixed. Charles Isherwood of The New York Times wrote an enthusiastic review for the Broadway production. He called the show "a pulsating portrait of wasted youth that invokes all the standard genre conventions ... only to transcend them through the power of its music and the artistry of its execution, the show is as invigorating and ultimately as moving as anything I’ve seen on Broadway this season. Or maybe for a few seasons past."" needs at least two references
 * Reference 72 now redirects to a pay-per-view site
 * Reference 73 is dead
 * Whilst this looks like a lot, the only section of the Good Article criteria that refers to this is 2(b), "it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". The rest of the article is fine, and so my suggestion is to remove all the information that isn't at the moment properly sourced and clean up the referencing a bit, so the article can be passed; the problem bits can then be gradually reinserted when the source is fixed/replaced. Of course, this is only my opinion; feel free to ignore me if you want - we eb il oo bi l  ( talk ) 00:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm going to give this a few days. If nothing happens then I am going to need to not promote this article. --Guerillero &#124; My Talk   18:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! It looks like I have a lot of work to do haha.  I will do the best I can. Basilisk4u (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

After over a month I am closing this GAR. There has been plenty of time since this was put on hold. The article did not pass because of sourcing issues; however, with some improvements I am very sure it will obtain GA status. cheers--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   19:46, 14 January 2011 (UTC)