Talk:Satisfied (DecembeRadio album)/GA1

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


 * 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):
 * I notice that the sources used are overwhelmingly Christian music sources (I think the only exceptions are AllMusic and Billboard). Was there really no coverage of the album in the mainstream media? I'm not saying the current sources aren't RS, just that a wider perspective would be valuable.
 * We're just talking about the "Critical reception" section here, right? I've searched Factiva and Google and found nothing beyond the Billboard review.  But I agree that having a wider perspective is desirable, and I'd be happy to move the section in that direction when it becomes practicable. —Zeagler (talk) 17:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, not much more you can do then, I'm passing the article. Lampman (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * All in all a very good article, and easy to review. The only issue I have is with the sources, I guess I'm just asking if you've looked without finding anything. Lampman (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * All in all a very good article, and easy to review. The only issue I have is with the sources, I guess I'm just asking if you've looked without finding anything. Lampman (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * All in all a very good article, and easy to review. The only issue I have is with the sources, I guess I'm just asking if you've looked without finding anything. Lampman (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)