Talk:In Death Reborn/GA1

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
 * B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
 * 1) Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
 * A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:


 * General
 * two dead links; other links at risk
 * I was concerned about this, until I was "source: Wikipedia". Therefore, this is not a reliable source
 * Talking about sources, the article relies in too many WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, including YouTube, Facebook Twitter and Instagram. I can see Wordpress and Discogs as sources, which are not reliable.


 * Infobox
 * 2012-2014 -> 2012–2014
 * Why Babygrande and Demigodz Records are written with a smaller text than Enemy?
 * Demigodz Records -> Demigodz
 * File:InDeathRebornRear.jpg fails WP:NFCC


 * Lead
 * "independent record label; Enemy Soil" -> incorrect use of WP:SEMICOLON
 * "would be releasing in 2014, Heavy Lies the Crown being released" -> The semicolon would be used here instead.
 * "The only member that didn't make" -> did not make
 * "It was later confirmed that ... On February 11, 2014, it was confirmed that" -> reword one of them
 * "production team consisted of producers" -> redundant
 * "of producers include" -> including
 * "of producers includ[ing] ... and including Army of the Pharaohs'... amongst others, including new faces" -> redundant
 * "faces that hadn't been" -> had not
 * You don't need to link the members more than once in the lead
 * on the song 7th Ghost -> on the song "7th Ghost". Titles of songs go on quotations not italics.
 * "7th Ghost" but spoke -> "7th Ghost", but spoke
 * "spoke out saying, how he was" -> "spoke out saying how he was"
 * "he had a lot of personal stuff going on" -> that is jargon
 * "stated that there will be more of him on the LP that is due to drop in November." -> which November?
 * "in favour" -> this is an American subject
 * "The group released their second album of the year Heavy Lies the Crown on 21 October 2014. Six months after In Death Reborn." -> you already mentioned this
 * "US Billboard 200" -> Billboard
 * "US Billboard 200[13] and also topping the UK R&B albums at 33 and US Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums at 16". -> US, UK, US. Order required
 * Online Rap album reviewer; -> no reason to use semicolon
 * "Online rap album reviewer; RapReviews gave" -> "Online Rap album reviewer, RapReviews, gave"
 * "gave the album a mediocre score of 5.5/10" -> 5.5 is hardly "mediocre"
 * "fairly positive" -> POV
 * "Canadian Music magazine Exclaim!" -> Canadian music magazine Exclaim!
 * Unless it is a BLP issue, you don't need to use sources in the lead.
 * Main issues with the lead alone. The first paragraph is OK, it gives the reader relevant information (although some of it is irrelevant for the lead). The second paragraph is a big "Background". Most of it is not relevant here and can easily be simplified. Third paragraph is unneutral. And the lead in general fails WP:LEAD, as it does not summarizes the content.

Considering the issues I mentioned above are merely the lead, I have to quick-fail the nomination. I suggest you, first, to contact a WP:GOCE member that can help you to re-structure the article. Secondly, you can consult other WP:GA/Music articles to check how to shape the points of view and quotations. After that, you can request a WP:Good article reassessment or re-nominate it if required or if you believe this closure is an error. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 01:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)