Talk:Kala (album)/GA1

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

I will be reviewing the article for GA. I've reviewed it for a B-class before and tagged it once, but other then that, I think I'm good for reviewing it. This is my first GA review, so bare with me on it! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * The writing style could use a few clean-ups here and there. The article claims the album was released 8 August 2007 in the infobox but in the opening paragraph suggets otherwise (for what appears to be the Japanese release). That could be re-phrased, in the intro, or simply changed to the world debut of the album.
 * Changed
 * "She had spoken in 2005 of her intention to work with Timbaland on several tracks for her second album, including during her appearance on MuchMusic's Much on Demand music show in September 2005, but scheduling problems, exacerbated by her failure to gain a visa to re-enter the U.S., put paid to the collaboration." Could the last part of this paragraph be re-phrased?
 * Changed
 * When some groups and people are named you may want to clarify who they are. For example, instead of wanting to work with Timbaland, say work with producer Timbaland. Same with Three 6 Mafia with "hip hop group" or such.
 * Changed
 * In the track listing section, it goes back and forth between using :'s and –'s. –'s should be used.
 * I can't see what you mean there, I'm afraid, could you clarify....?
 * On "Japanese/iTunes bonus track" a / should not be used. Change it to Japanese and iTunes instead.
 * Changed
 * According to WP:Albums, only the original and main distributor of the album in the Label section of the infobox should be listed. Move that information about the Interscope release as part of the release section in the US.
 * Changed
 * In the second picture of the live performance the song "Hussle" should be written as "Hussle" not as Hussle.
 * Changed


 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * I can see room for some slight reference upgrades. The main figure is that there is no citation for European Top 100 Albums or UK Indie album charts. Also, discogs.com is a site where it's content seems user driven rather then staff driven. I can't place it as an accurate site to cite sources from. Either find the original source for this information or have it removed.
 * Euro Top 100 now cited. Can't find anywhere that lists historical data for the UK Indie Albums Chart, so have taken that out.  Citations to discogs.com removed, instead I have simply cited the album's liner notes, hope this is OK....


 * 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):
 * Album cover is good. You might want to add a bit more information to that picture of Afrikan Boy. Where it was taken, part of the tour such as "MIA performing in France with Afrikan Boy. Afrikan Boy provided vocals for the track "Hussel"."
 * Done
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * Album cover is good. You might want to add a bit more information to that picture of Afrikan Boy. Where it was taken, part of the tour such as "MIA performing in France with Afrikan Boy. Afrikan Boy provided vocals for the track "Hussel"."
 * Done


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On Hold, awaiting some clean-up and improvements! Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have started responding to your points, I will get them all addressed by the end of today -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Great job! In my opinion, the article now qualifies for Good Article status. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cheers! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)