Talk:Make-Up (American band)/GA1

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

This article has been reviewed as part of WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. .
 * GA review (see here for criteria):

I will review this article. Lampman (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Generally it's a healthy article, probably because it went through an (unsuccessful) FA review late in 2007. The only major problem is with the references. There are four dead links, three of them associated with the site Drag City (I've tagged the dead links.) One of these is used ten times, and constitutes a major part of the sourcing of the band's biography. I tried to track down the links, but to no avail. This causes a major problem with WP:V. If I understand correctly, these were pure web references, that now simply don't exist any more. This will have to be addressed for the article to maintain GA status. Lampman (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Alright, fixed all the references. Whew.  Thank god for Internet Archive.  Looks like alot of these pages went dead sometime in 2008, but luckly the archive caught them all before then.  So now, there's a ton of references with archived urls, which isn't ideal, but it's better than nothing.  And given that the band haven't been active for 10 years now, I doubt there's going to be any more source material made any time soon to replace any of it. Drewcifer (talk) 03:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job, those sources look fine (though they take about a week to open...) I'm happy to pass it now. Lampman (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC)