Talk:Paranoid Android/GA1

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


 * Background
 * "The song was originally over 14 minutes long," Why was it cut down to six minutes?
 * The only motivation members of the band have mentioned is already in the article; they wanted to make different unrelated parts work together in a song and they were inspired by the Beatles' editing technique.
 * That says why the song was six-and-a-half minutes long, rather than why they thought about a 14-minute long song, but then cut it down. Peanut4 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the editing thing does say why they cut it down. Other than that no information is available for why they chose to start with a 14 minute version and then edit it down anyway, so there isn't any way to expand it to add a reason that hasn't been given. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to jokingly answer with "because it was 14 minutes!" but yeah, I basically agree with BLZ. I'll take another look at the sources but I don't recall reading anywhere why they did it — just that they did it. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * General
 * I can't see anywhere when the single was actually released.


 * How about anything about the CD cover art at all?
 * Very nice. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Impressive! :) Just for the record, is that stuff written in ALL CAPS on the actual CD cover? Even if it is, I don't think we should replicate that here as it makes it a bit hard to read. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is presented in glorious all-caps-vision on the record, but I'll go ahead and change it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is presented in glorious all-caps-vision on the record, but I'll go ahead and change it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Only a couple of things, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Meets all the GA criteria. Would be good to find anything on the point above, but it might be just a trivial matter not worthy of further clarification. A very good read overall. I just noticed it was a Alternative Music collaboration of the week, but a lot of good work has gone into it. If you were to push onto FAC, my only suggestion would be to get a peer review but it might not be that you will get much from that if it was a collaboration of the week effort. Otherwise, perhaps another image might help, but I can't make any other suggestions to help. Best of luck with any future work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. I've been looking around for free imagery and have only found slim pickings — I doubt that video would be useful, and the other images are really far away from the camera so barely show anything. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)