Talk:The Dandy Warhols/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 13:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I've started reviewing this, but I've immediately run into a problem that I cannot find a reliable source for Courtney Taylor-Taylor being named as such. The Dandy Warhols FAQ as referenced here states, verbatim, "THe FAQ is currently unavailable, because I was too damn lazy to remember to update it, so it is way out of date. I plan on updating it, but we'll see.". To me, that screams out "unreliable source". -- Ritchie333  (talk)  13:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I've had a further look through and spotted some more issues :


 * The first reference, which is used to cite the entire history of the band forming, is a Facebook page. Even if a FB page is "officially" supported by the band, it can still be considered questionable, as it tends to repeat official information presented elsewhere, or user generated content (which is unreliable).


 * "well-known for their nudity-filled live shows" absolutely needs a citation. I don't have the source anymore but I certainly recall an interview with Q Magazine c. 1997 which stated certain band members had only performed topless "a couple of times".


 * "popular single" is a subjective term - should be changed to either "charting single" (with a citation to the chart position) or "single".


 * The use of Bohemian Like You in a Vodafone advert is unreferenced - shouldn't be hard to find one.


 * The reference to the film "9 songs" is problematic - the line here is unreferenced and the linked article is tagged as requiring secondary sources.


 * The "musical style" section is completely unreferenced, and could be argued to be original research. Unless you can find a magazine article (for example) that goes into the band's musical style in depth, I wouldn't worry about having this section.


 * GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Too much of the article is unreferenced or is referenced to unreliable sources, particularly the Facebook page. See if there are other news outlets that can support the information presented here.
 * 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:
 * The article is broadly neutral, though I have noticed a few puff words/
 * 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 afraid there is too much unreferenced or badly referenced content to qualify as a GA at this time. Sorry.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * I'm afraid there is too much unreferenced or badly referenced content to qualify as a GA at this time. Sorry.
 * I'm afraid there is too much unreferenced or badly referenced content to qualify as a GA at this time. Sorry.

Sorry about that. Thanks for your contributions for the page, though, and please resubmit to GA when you think the issues I've raised have been readdressed -- Ritchie333  (talk)  15:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)