Talk:No Code/GA1

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

Reviewer: Idiotchalk (talk · contribs) 20:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Another well-written and thorough Pearl Jam article but there are a few issues to be addressed before passing the article.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Some minor issues with references. (see below)
 * 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):
 * Minor issue with one caption/alternate text.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * On hold until some issues below are fixed.

Issues in the article

 * Infobox
 * The article mentions No Code was mixed at Southern Tracks Recording and Doppler in Atlanta, not recorded there.
 * No need for language parameter.


 * Lead
 * "even more diverse" sounds POV/like journalism, perhaps rephrase or remove the "even."


 * Recording
 * "For its fourth album, Pearl Jam again worked with producer Brendan O'Brien." It would be useful to note what other album O'Brien produced.
 * Add "(1994)" after Vitalogy.
 * It would be useful to mention the recording studio's name in Chicago.
 * "the band seemed to have found a calmer place in which to exist" could use better wording, sounds very like journalism.


 * Music and lyrics
 * "anthemic stadium sound, favoring experimental ballads and noisy garage rockers." "Anthemic" either needs a source or should be reworded. "Rockers" sounds very out of place, is it supposed to be just "rock"?
 * "Flemion is given credit in the "No Code" vinyl." No Code should be italicized, not in quotation marks.
 * "The lyrics to "Red Mosquito" ... in front of 50,000 people." This sentence drags on a bit, it would be better to split it into two sentences for clarity.


 * Packaging
 * Image caption needs fixing. The caption shows alternate text instead.
 * Is there any reason why Polaroids is capitalized?
 * Generic trademark at use; it's a brand, after all.


 * Tour
 * "out-of-the-way" sounds vague, this could use better wording.


 * Release and reception
 * Remove "at" following ""Who You Are" peaked at number 31 on the Billboard Hot 100."
 * "Album track "Red Mosquito" also charted" could use better wording, it might also be useful to note it was not released as a retail single.
 * Remove space before ref tags after ""Red Mosquito" also charted."
 * For "Critical response," a quick summary (e.g. "No Code received mixed reviews," "upon its release, No Code received a mixed critical reception.") to begin the section would be useful.


 * Track listing
 * The sub-section "Outtakes" would be better suited in Recording.
 * in Outtakes "weren't" should be "were not."
 * the Dead Men Walking soundtrack statement needs a source.
 * "Both songs were included on Lost Dogs as well" could use better wording like "Both songs were also included on Lost Dogs."


 * Personnel
 * Again, any reason why Polaroids is capitalized?


 * Chart performances
 * WikiLink Austrian Albums Chart and Finnish Albums Chart.
 * "Austria! Well, then. G'day mate! Let's put another shrimp on the barbie!" Sorry, the link you put up there just asked for this... Fixed.
 * D'oh, bit of a George Bush moment there!


 * For clarity, "Position" should probably be changed to "Peak position."


 * WikiLink singles.
 * It might be useful to use ref label to list "Red Mosquito"'s note (see Live Through This)


 * For clarity, End-of-year charts should probably be before Certifications.


 * It's not neccessary, but recommended per WP:ALBUM/CERT, to use certification tables (Certification Table Top, Certification Table Entry, Certification Table Summary, Certification Table Bottom) for Certifications.


 * References
 * Ref 15 should link to page 2 of the article.
 * Ref 16 has an "a name" html tag, it might be useful to put "#06/29/06" after the URL so it can be easily found.
 * Ref 19 is sourced from a Billboard article on Google.com.br. Seeing as it's English Wikipedia, it might be better to just use Google.com.
 * Ref 25 should link to http://www.pearljam.com/tour/shows/1996 instead of just http://pearljam/comtour/shows.php
 * Ref 36 links to page 104 of the Billboard article, the source content is one page 103.
 * Refs 42-44, 46-48, and 51-54 should add Hung Medien as a publisher and have accurate titles. (e.g. ref 47 is "finnishcharts.com - Finnish charts portal" not "Finnish Single/Album Chart / Pearl Jam / Longplay."
 * Put Hung Medien, but is replacing the title necessary?
 * Not neccessary, just recommended.
 * Ref 50 seems to need search parameters, it should be noted in the references how to access the information.
 * Ref 65, like ref 50, also needs search parameters. Something like "N.B. User must define search parameters and enter either "Pearl Jam" into Search By Artist or "Who You Are" into Search By Song Title."

Done most, if not all. igordebraga ≠ 04:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Great! It's not something that's neccessary but it would make the last section a lot clearer if the Certification Table templates were used. Otherwise, it's ready to be passed. Idiotchalk (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Voila! Good work, another fine Pearl Jam article! Idiotchalk (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)