Talk:Streetlight Manifesto/GA1

GA Reassessment
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.'' As part of WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs some work to meet current criteria, outlined below: In short, this article needs to be substantially rewritten, expanded, referenced and audited. Given the number and scale of these problems, I do not believe they could be addressed in a short period of time, and I am boldly delisting the article now. The article can be renominated at WP:GAN any time, but note that in its current state it would most likely be quickfailed. If you have any questions or comments, bring it to my talk page—I don't watchlist old reviews. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Lots of the article (maybe even the majority of the content therein) is entirely unsourced.This has to be verified, as there's no real common knowledge as far as I can see.
 * The lead serves as a summary of the entire article. That means that content that is not in the body, such as Warped Tour 2009 and the band member's full names, should be cut or migrated into the body. Paragraphs are greater than or at least three sentences, and there are several spots, most notably the lead, where there are just one and two-paragrah groupings that need to be fleshed out or combined.
 * I don't exactly agree with Gerbera on the talk page where he argues that there's too much detail per se, but the article suffers from a serious problem of outdated and overemphasis of less-important information. We don't need dates for "X said Y", as that breaks up flow and doesn't offer much to the reader. What we do need is more substantial information on what the band is doing now.
 * What makes Ink 19, Punknews.org, and Sinizine.net reliable? Browsing their sites I didn't find any evidence that supported their meeting criteria, especially as we should use the best-quality sources available. In fact, referencing in general is very poor here; virtually everything is cited to the band members themselves, creating WP:POV, tone and construction issues.
 * "#Rivalry with Catch 22" is complete trivia and blatant original research and should be burnt with fire.