Talk:Radio Wars/GA1

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

Reviewer: Novice7 (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * GA review (see here for criteria)

This is a good article, but needs a lot of work to pass GAN.
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The prose is good, but could use a little copy-editing. There are also a few comma and other punctuation errors. The lead should be expanded to comply with MoS.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few instances of Original research (like the Artwork, release, and reception sections)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Seems okay
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Isn't the reception section a bit biased? ("it was regarded as a disappointment, especially after the fine critical praise of the first album.") OR too.
 * It may seem and sound biased but it is honest. I'll try and change the wording around to give it more of a unbiased POV. Mattchewbaca   &bull;  meow  22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Stable
 * 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):
 * Aren't there any images of the band? Also, the album art should be re-sized to 300×300 pixels.
 * I will contact a few people and see if they would be willing to add some pics to the Commons. Will also re-size the cover art. Mattchewbaca   &bull;  meow  22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Sorry. I have to fail this article for the time being. Please fix the issues and re-nominate again. Thank you.


 * Other reviews
 * The lead does not summarize the whole article. What about the reception? Promotion (if any)? Include them too.
 * Many references are not formatted properly. I mean, the publisher and work fields are not correct. Fix them too.
 * Can you give me a hint on what I need to do to correct this issue? Mattchewbaca   &bull;  meow  22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Singles and artwork sections are too short. Also, no need to include the link to website below the Singles section. Add it to External links, if it is needed.
 * Discogs.com is not reliable.
 * Alot of articles link to Discogs, was under the assumption that it is reliable. Guess I can remove this. Mattchewbaca   &bull;  meow  22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The release and reception section does not say anything about the release. The ratings table has all its references unformatted. Also, many online sources are italicized. They should not be. Only print sources should be italicized.
 * Tracklisting and personnel unsourced.
 * Release history unsourced. The accolades can be easily merged with Critical reception (as prose).
 * I kinda like the accolades as a table instead of including it as prose in critical reception. That won't effect a passing outcome will it? Mattchewbaca   &bull;  meow  22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Novice7 (talk) 14:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the fast review. I am going to work on resolving these. Mattchewbaca   &bull;  meow  22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)