Talk:Phantom Power (Super Furry Animals album)/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.'' Hello editors. I'll be reviewing this article for GA. I'll have the GA checklist with my analysis up sometime later today. Tim meh  ! ( review me ) 17:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * I did have to make several MoS fixes, but the article now complies with the MoS. I did have to remove several "while"s used incorrectly and "however"s.
 * 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):
 * There aren't any specific dates or even time periods mentioned in the origins and recording section. Over how many months/years was the album recorded? When did major events in the recording process take place?
 * 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:
 * I'm putting this on hold until my concerns about the origins and recording section are addressed. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 22:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a time period for recording. Can't find anything more specific I'm afraid. Cavie78 (talk) 10:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that'll have to do. There's just one more thing; the release and critical reception sections should be shown before the DVD section, with the accolades and release history tables having their own sections below the track listing. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the DVD section comes before the critical reception section is that it mostly contains material that is discussed in that section i.e. the 14 tracks on the album. I think the release section works much better where it is as again it discusses both the album and DVD. The accolades and release history tables relate directly to the sections they are in - I'll move them if I most but I think they work better where they are. Cavie78 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I seem to only have the main talk page watchlisted. I'm passing the article. Congratulations and good work. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 01:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your hard work reviewing the article Cavie78 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, that'll have to do. There's just one more thing; the release and critical reception sections should be shown before the DVD section, with the accolades and release history tables having their own sections below the track listing. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 22:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason the DVD section comes before the critical reception section is that it mostly contains material that is discussed in that section i.e. the 14 tracks on the album. I think the release section works much better where it is as again it discusses both the album and DVD. The accolades and release history tables relate directly to the sections they are in - I'll move them if I most but I think they work better where they are. Cavie78 (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sorry I didn't respond earlier, but I seem to only have the main talk page watchlisted. I'm passing the article. Congratulations and good work. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 01:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for your hard work reviewing the article Cavie78 (talk) 11:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)