Talk:The Doors/GA1

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

I'll take this on. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

General comments

 * Some refs (e.g. 11, 19, 26, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 55, 91, 98) need fuller detailing: there should at least be a date or accessdate for each one.


 * I have marked up dead links in the text. 57 may be dead, please check.


 * I have marked up citations needed in the text. There are close to being enough of these for a quick fail. I will hold off from that to see what nom or other editors (see the next item) have to say.

Specific comments

 * The Doors of Perception: it may be worth pointing out that Huxley's book was about mind-altering drugs: I assume sources can readily be found to say that was why Morrison chose the name: Doors History (already cited) says so (and this reviewer believes it's a trustworthy site).


 * The The Doors of Perception material is better cited in the lead than in the body: suggest all the refs be moved to the body.


 * (Lead) "They were unique": well, every band is that. The four other adjectives in that same sentence say it better: suggest we just drop the uniqueness claim.


 * IMdB isn't a great source as it's basically a Wiki. Ref 45 is formatted to look as if it's from the Roundhouse venue but it isn't, it's IMdB, which must be fixed. Ideally find a better source.


 * Cherry's book is used in some refs without linking: please move it from Further reading to Bibliography and link it from the refs using the sfn template.


 * Every entry in Awards, accolades, and critical appraisal needs to be cited.


 * I'm not sure we need separate sections for "Films about the Doors" and "In culture". Suggest we merge them.


 * "New releases" isn't well titled: what is "new"? Perhaps something dull like "Subsequent releases" would convey the intention better.

Suitability of the nomination (comments by multiple reviewers)
Just a quickie here, the nominator, doesn't appear to have done much work on this article, and has been warned about drive-by GA nominations from other editors. I've worked with on one Doors related GA with success, so he may be able to pull something out of the bag; otherwise I'm concerned any issue you raise may not actually be addressed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * @ Aaargh, thanks for telling me. I do not believe this will be a complex review but if TheGracefulSlick can handle it that would be great. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The following is copied from another GAN by the editor: "First, according to the GA nomination instructions, if you haven't made any significant contributions to the article, before you nominate it for GA status, you are supposed to check with the major contributors to see whether they think it's ready for nomination before nominating. Generally, that involves a post on the article's talk page asking for their thoughts, with at least seven days allowed for responses to be made. You didn't do that, which was alluded to in the GA review.

Second, while the article has a large number of inline sources, there are a significant number of paragraphs, sometimes more than one in a row, that are unsourced; many of these contain information that absolutely requires sourcing...

There are other issues as well: for example, the lead section (MOS:LEAD is part of the first of the GA criteria) is six paragraphs; the maximum is should be four... BlueMoonset (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)"

The editor's only edits to this article are 1) to remove a maintenance template (Refimprove section) without adding any needed refs with the edit summary "Template removed:Plenty of sources;All check out;Outdated template"; 2) to change the "Personnel" section heading to "Members" (MOS:ALBUM states "A personnel section should be included under a primary heading "Personnel"").

The main problem is very large sections of text without any inline citations. Without these, it is impossible to tell if the article meets WP:GACR number two: Verifiable with no original research (emphasis in original). The Doors is one of the most written about 1960s rock groups. It should be easy to provide the references required for a GA. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Indeed, as I've indicated above, I will promptly fail the article unless nom or another editor steps up with evidence that the citation issue is being addressed with suitable despatch. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oi, sorry but it would take me weeks to get this ready for a proper GA review. When I write a GA, I usually tear down the foundation and start a new at my sandbox. I am actually working, albeit slowly, on a draft for the Doors' debut. Sorry but the nom, quite frankly, has wasted your time.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:32, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the frank assessment. Good luck with your 'debut' article. I'll QF it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yup, quickfail it. Long-term I hope TGS does put it forward for GA when it's ready, which is obviously not now. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  14:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I found this actually just now.Ill try to work on the article.Thanks for bringing that up. Cheers.WikiEditCrunch (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)