Talk:People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm/GA1

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

Reviewer: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. One of my favourite albums. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

 * Can the lead be expanded a little bit? Perhaps with a quote from the legacy section?
 * Nice job with what's there, though.

Recording

 * Should be a comma after "Q-Tip later commented".
 * "Although claiming" should be "Although claiming that".
 * "Q-Tip was the only Tribe Called Quest member present". Change this to either "Q-Tip was the only group member" or "the only member of A Tribe Called Quest", I'm not sure if we should be taking the "A" off the name.
 * Should be a comma after "Group member Phife Dawg later admitted" as well.

Critical reception

 * The third paragraph seems more appropriate for the "Legacy" section, seeing it appears to consist entirely of retrospective reviews.
 * Maybe link to here when mentioning the perfect review from The Source. Also, maybe change "perfect" to "five-mic", considering the honour is pretty well-known in the hip-hop community.
 * Good paraphrasing.

Legacy and influence

 * Should probably just be called "Legacy", to be consistent with other music good articles.
 * One instance of "Instinctive" is not capitalised and should be.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons&mdash;science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Wish there was more pictures, but no biggie.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * Wish there was more pictures, but no biggie.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Wish there was more pictures, but no biggie.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Conclusion
Looking good. I'd just like to see a little bit of work on the lead and some minor prose issues and then this should be good. For now I'm putting it on hold. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reviewing. I've made the requested changes (however, I added a "Retrospect" heading above the third paragraph in reception). Please let me know if there's anything else. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much, everything looks great now. Will be happy to ✅ this. Great to see this quality album having a quality Wikipedia page. Congratulations! StewdioMACK (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Awsome. Thanks so much. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)