Talk:Limp Bizkit/GA1

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

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Right then, I will begin reviewing this article and make straightforward changes as I go (explanations in edit summaries). Please revert any changes I make where I inadvertently change the meaning. I will post queries below. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The first para of Formation and early years (1994–1996) - do we have and/or can we add info on how long the three were jamming before Borland joined? Did any of these three songs survive in any form or develop into anything notable?


 * Durst named the band Limp Bizkit, because he wanted a name that would repel listeners. According to Durst, "The name is there to turn people's heads away. A lot of people pick up the disc and go, 'Limp Bizkit. Oh, they must suck.' Those are the people that we don't even want listening to our music." - I'm torn here - the quote is really good I think as it encapsulates Durst's reasoning well and is striking. However the first sentence is then somewhat repetitious and possibly redundant, yet the quote comes over as a bit naked without it. I am musing out loud here as I don't see a clear answer here and maybe there isn't one...hmmm.


 * The Devenish reference page ranges, are they chapters? Just looks odd how many go into pages 21-51. Is it worth splitting them up a bit?


 *  Durst invited Korn to drink beer and tattoo the band members. - subjects confused here -the "tattoo the band members" is written so "Korn" is the subject of it, but should be Durst.


 *  However, Borland left the band after a disagreement with Durst. - errr, why? better, can "creative differences" be embellished at all? If not, it's cool. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 *  After a successful performance when they opened for Korn at the Dragonfly in Hollywood - "successful" is a funny word here, I mean a band doesn't "pass" or "fail" when it plays...I'd think a word like "impressive" is a better adjective (?)


 * While heading to California to record their first album, the band wrecked their van, leading Durst to rehire Borland - errr, why...because Borland had a van? But seriously, a reason here 'd be good.


 * Interscope proposed to the band that the label pay 5,000 - dollars I presume?


 * As a general statement, try to minimise repetition of common words such as "Durst" and the band's name if you can - I've got a few, adn a few more could be trimmed.


 * If you haven't seen User:Tony1/How to improve your writing, have a read now. I found it very helpful.


 *  Several sexual assaults, that included but were not limited to rapes - the "but were not limited to" suggests there was worse than rape, but I can't figure out what that is supposed to mean. I'd leave those five words out.


 * Departure of Borland, hiatus and reunion (2002–2011) is a bit choppy - adding some information on why he left and returned would make it flow more smoothly. also note how para 2 reads like para 1.


 *  Music and lyrics is also a bit choppy -- any other general discussion of band style, or of their influences and inspirations would be good here. yep, good.


 * Borland's visual style and guitar playing is the primary source of the band's fanbase - a pretty big statement to make...?


 * In the Live performances section - can we add any info on their best/worst tours?


 * I noticed a discussion on bootlegs above, I guess I'd think of a bootleg as notable if it had received some coverage and discussion (eg Durst or some rock critics particularly praising or damning it, and/or if it had been widely circulated). If there are none that fit, then that's fine.


 * Has anyone cited the band as an influence? Has any segment of their music been sampled in another notable song? Are there any notable devotees? If none to any of these, then that is ok.

Overall, promising - it is punctuated by some fun anecdotes and prose which make it a good read. I haven't looked at the refs - I don't often do band articles so am not too familiar with RS vs non RS sources. Anyway, let's see how we go with prose/comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The chapters of the book are unnamed, that's why it's split that way. WTF (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ok. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PS: I am trying to give this article as hard a shove as possible in the direction of FAC, as I think that is a good destination. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Added some samples and covers. WTF (talk) 04:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Well written?:
 * Prose quality:
 * Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:
 * References to sources:
 * Citations to reliable sources, where required:
 * No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:
 * Major aspects:
 * Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:
 * Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?
 * No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:
 * Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: (Personality Rights tag noted on commons page of Fred Durst image, but is in a public place so consent unneeded) Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:  -a nice read. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)