Talk:Iron Maiden/GA1

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

I looked through the article, but it's got quite bit of work that needs to be done before it's at GA level.


 * 1) Much of the article is still unsourced. It should be fully sourced in order to be promoted to GA.
 * I've worked on this some but loads more sourcing is needed. Particularly, a lot of information is probably sourced from the various books listed in the references, and I don't personally have any of them - I'll have to leave this to someone who does. ~ mazca  t
 * 1) The article could use a good copyedit. The prose could be tightened up, but the bigger problems were unexplained statements (why did Sharon unplug the PA system? that whole paragraph is confusing) and short, choppy paragraphs.
 * Added some info to the Ozzfest incident, all of which is taken care of by the pre-existing citation.Ynot4tony2 (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) On the subject of the short paragraphs, they would benefit from added detail. Much of the article seems to be lacking in comprehensiveness (as a quick example, what is Ed Hunter?).
 * Agree in principle, though I'm confused by your specific example - both the occasions that name is mentioned is in a sentence like "the computer game Ed Hunter". ~ mazca  t
 * Sorry, I could have explained that better. I haven't heard of a band releasing a computer game before (although it has probably happened a few times). A quick explanation of what the game is would help, as it left me wondering what kind of game Iron Maiden would release. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:01, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Why is "poem of the same name" italicized?
 * ✅, no idea - fixed. ~ mazca  t
 * 1) The lead needs to be expanded. For an article of this length, it should be two-three well-sized paragraphs that summarize the entire article.
 * 2) It would be nice if some more "official" reviews were included in the references rather than the questionable sites that are currently referenced.
 * 3) Reference 3 is a wiki that should not be used as a reference.
 * ✅, removed - it was just duplicated information anyway. ~ mazca  t
 * 1) Many of the online references are missing important information. At minimum, they should have a title, url, publisher, and accessdate. If a date or author is given, that information should be included as well. The references should also be properly and consistently formatted &mdash; see Citation templates for the template.
 * ✅ Everything that was missing this data now has it and I've generally used the and  template more appropriately throughout the references. Your previous comment on the need for more sources still stands, but the ones we do have now look a lot more complete.  ~  mazca  t
 * 1) Images should be staggered rather than all in a vertical column.
 * 2) The pictures of "Dave Murray and Adrian Smith" and "Adrian Smith, Dave Murray, Janick Gers, Steve Harris" have outdated templates that do not give sufficient explanation of why they are public domain.
 * 3) The clips in the "Audio" section do not have the detailed fair use rationales that are required. I think including them is unnecessary, however, so removing the section is probably better for copyright reasons.
 * I've massively improved their fair-use rationales, as they were indeed poor. I disagree that they're unnecessary though, I consider them pretty well-chosen samples that educationally illustrate important aspects of the band's style and history. Based on other articles - specifically the FA-class article on Metallica, which has a similar number of samples for a similar purpose - I think they're perfectly within acceptable bounds of the non-free content criteria. ~ mazca  t

This should give a good start. Please note that this is not a comprehensive list of what needs to be done, but this will get things moving. If this list can be completed within a week, I will post a more detailed review at that time. Any questions or comments can be left here, as I have added this page to my watchlist. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I had been thinking about GA-nominating this at some point but I didn't think it was anywhere near ready yet, mostly because of the sourcing issues you mention and the fact that no substantial improvements have been made to the article in a while - I'm surprised someone else has done so without mentioning it. Thanks for the initial review anyway, I've been planning to work on this article and I suppose now is as good a time as any. :) ~ mazca  t 09:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Made quite a few changes, detailed up in response to your points above. ~ mazca  t 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It has been over a week, and there are still many serious problems with the article. I am failing the nomination, as it just isn't ready at this point. I hope my list can be of use and that references can be found. I also recommend submitting the article for peer review prior to its next nomination. Thanks for the responses, as that the article has definitely improved. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I agree. I don't think it should have been nominated in the first place yet, it was clearly not ready. Thanks for your assistance and to Ynot4tony/Be Black Hole Sun and anyone else that helped improve it this week. ~ mazca  t 11:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)