Talk:Straight Outta Compton/GA1

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

Reassessing.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

 * Pass
 * Image of cover is appropriately tagged. It doesn't need a caption.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Stable. There's been some inappropriate IP edits, but not enough to make the article unstable.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:47, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ref section. There is an appropriate reference section.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Query
 * No original research and bias. Because some statements are not appropriately sourced it is unknown if these statements are original research or are biased. Once the article is securely sourced this query is likely to disappear.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Major aspects. Though there is material on Critical response, and there are assertions of the album's importance in the lead, I don't feel the article has adequately or appropriately explained to the general reader, supported by reliable sources, the importance or relevance of the album. I have put it here as a query, though I feel this aspect is quite probably a fail.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Focus. There is a lot of material on samples. The material does not explain the samples, merely lists them. This gives a feel of trivia or that the material has a low relevance. The material should either be removed or its relevance/importance explained to the general reader.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fail
 * Valid fair use rationales. There are three media files, though one song, "Straight Outta Compton", is not discussed at all, and the other two are not discussed in relation to the media file - "Fuck tha Police" is mentioned as being responsible for NWA's fame, and that it doesn't appear on the "Clean" album - but the music is not discussed, which is the point of the media file. The lyrics can be discussed without use of a media file, though the delivery of the lyrics, if appropriate, would benefit from a media file.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:27, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Prose. Prose is not "clear and concise". Needs a copyedit.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:50, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mos: Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. In addition, the lead should not contain important statements which are not also in the main body.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Citation to reliable sources. A number of statements need sourcing or better sourcing.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  17:59, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

On hold

 * Significant contributors and WikiProjects will be informed. GAR on hold for seven days to allow issues listed above to be addressed.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  18:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree that is should be demoted. My only contributions were mostly to the reviews part, so I couldnt really address these issues as I have little grasp on the topic. Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Delist

 * There's been no response, so I am delisting.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  20:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)