Talk:The Downward Spiral/GA1

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

Reviewer:  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, lets do it. I haven't taken a deep look at the article yet, but I did not notice any maintenance templates, so I will get to work. Here are a couple of things I have noticed off the bat.
 * The "Background" section is not needed considering it has nothing to do with the album itself. Delete it.
 * I was absent from doing this objective, so you terminated that section. Also, I was in some other thing... &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Any material in the lead should be brought up in the actual article later. Therefore, there is no need to cite the lead. Cite the information when it appears later in the article.
 * I'll plan to do this task. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Track listings need to be cited.
 * I don't believe in this goal, and there is no need of that. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Considering that each single has their own article (and if they don't, they charted, they can get an article on wikipedia), delete the single chart.
 * The singles chart for the article is seen in revisions prior to May 2011, and not seen in the current revision. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Note #92 isn't a reference, therefore it isn't worth anything. Delete it (it will be deleted when you get rid of the singles chart). Include the two singles it mentions as actual singles unless you have a source saying otherwise.
 * Someone removed the note instead of me, but i can"t find the name of that one. however the source seen was:

"'Piggy' and 'Hurt' were released only as promotional singles, not as commercial singles."

That was all of the note. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The book in the references section isn't worth anything without footnotes.
 * As User:ThinkBlue, the GA-crazy good cunt, says: "Done." &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The "Chart history" section should be renamed "Charts".
 * Lady Gaga articles are a good example, right? Yes they are... &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Writing and recording:
 * Not only is the word "potboiled" not used in the source, but it is a word that I have never heard used in the english language. Change it.
 * If you have a dictionary, try to find the word "potboiled". &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Reception:
 * Why isn't Robert Christgau's review included into the box?
 * A revision from April 2011 is the answer. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 06:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "There are some connections glued between the two records; both are placed at numbers 200 and 336 respectively..." ← This statement makes no sense. It uses "respectively" when the albums were not mentioned in the sentence, nor in an identifiable order earlier in the paragraph.
 * A wikipedia user indeed solved this problem. I didn't. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Just a few things... I will give you a formal review later.  I Help, When I Can. [12] 00:22, 16 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Christgau's review is not much of a review, so a more notable inclusion would be a review more extensive. Dan56 (talk) 02:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

100% fixed.  'I  `'/ I>  &lt; pronounced " o ne- h un d red- s e v en t y" &gt;  22:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As you read The Downward Spiral, you may notice something I added to the article, just to provide more information. It's not a fucking vandal bomb, it IS expansion stuff to meet your expectations. I have arrived late to respond to the review, by the way. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * First of all, I found your comments on my talk page rather rude. Honestly because of them, I was going to wait another month to get this done. But since I'm such a kind person, lets do this. Official Review Starts Below...  I Help, When I Can. [12] 14:55, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Formal review
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:
 * Citation #17 is pure original research. You need a source saying such information.
 * Now that I removed #17 (reducing the number of total references to 103), I will have to deal with the "release notes" thing later. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of information is cited on the release notes. I am doubtful that all of the information came from there. Please find more tangible sources to use on information.
 * I deleted one note called "The Downward Spiral (Interscope Records/nothing/TVT, March 8, 1994) booklet; lyrics.", and used a good source for the "Packaging" section. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 20:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 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:
 * Activity hasn't significantly slowed down yet, but it is the same editors improving the article for GA. Will check later for this criteria.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * File:Nin-the downward spiral800.jpg
 * The fair use rationale needs to be updated.
 * Make sure the rationale has one actual source.
 * Needs to be reduced to somewhere around 300px.
 * The previous revisions of the file need to be deleted after you are done. You can template this for an administrator to do.
 * See this for an example.
 * The previous revision of File:Closer Monkey.jpg needs to be deleted.
 * No ideas from me to vow for these stunts. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What? Speak english.
 * Okay, I uploaded a 300x300 pixel version of the album cover image, but I can't do the goal of deleting a Closer music video screensot revision, so find somebody to kill off (delete) each of the revisions of those two pictures, the "Nin-the downward spiral800.jpg" and "Closer Monkey.jpg" ones (not their current revisions). Here's the photo I uploaded: File:Nine Inch Nails The Downward Spiral 300x300 pixels.jpg I'll kick-start this picture for the album template, while the 800 pixels version would be used in "Packaging" section. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 01:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever heard of Wikipedia's Non-free image policy? Baically, product covers, film, etc. Can only be used at restricted amounts. Not only can you not have two album covers, but you cannot have an album cover bigger than 300px. Also, fix the 300px image page to look like this (notice the fair use rationale).
 * Fixed: File:Nine Inch Nails The Downward Spiral 300x300 pixels.jpg &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * "Background and re-location" talks about a building located on 10050 Cielo Drive File:Cielo.Drive,Benedict.Canyon.jpg is located in "Le Pig sessions". The image also depicts everything, but the building. Therefore, even in the right location, this image doesn't belong in the article.
 * Deleted from article. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The caption on File:Adrian Belew (2006).jpg (in the section "Songs") says "Adrian Belew is responsible for his guitar work on The Downward Spiral." Of course he is responsible for his own work. I get a feeling that this is worded wrong and that's what the problem is.
 * "Adrian Belew is responsible for his guitar work on The Downward Spiral." → "Adrian Belew preformed guitars on two of The Downward Spiral's songs." &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Adrian Belew preformed guitar on 'Song' and 'Song'."
 * "Adrian Belew is responsible for his guitar work on The Downward Spiral." → "Adrian Belew preformed guitars on two of The Downward Spiral's songs." → "Adrian Belew preformed guitar on "Mr. Self-Destruct" and "The Becoming."" &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Deleted from article. &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The caption on File:Adrian Belew (2006).jpg (in the section "Songs") says "Adrian Belew is responsible for his guitar work on The Downward Spiral." Of course he is responsible for his own work. I get a feeling that this is worded wrong and that's what the problem is.
 * "Adrian Belew is responsible for his guitar work on The Downward Spiral." → "Adrian Belew preformed guitars on two of The Downward Spiral's songs." &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * "Adrian Belew preformed guitar on 'Song' and 'Song'."
 * "Adrian Belew is responsible for his guitar work on The Downward Spiral." → "Adrian Belew preformed guitars on two of The Downward Spiral's songs." → "Adrian Belew preformed guitar on "Mr. Self-Destruct" and "The Becoming."" &#39;&#124;  `&#39;/ I&gt; (talk) 20:37, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

Second opinion
Before User:IHelpWhenICan left Wikipedia, I didn't really think the article could meet requirements on references, pictures, or else. Most goals were met, but who needs to find a better way to finish off the remains. To everyone: Any of your home-made thoughts and reactions on this article? To User:Malconfort: you review it!  'I  `'/ I>  &lt; pronounced " o ne- h un d red- s e v en t y" &gt;  21:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, nobody reviewed it, and are pissed off to getting busy on other wiki-businesses. I can review this article instead. Unusual move, huh?  'I   `'/ I>  &lt; pronounced " o ne- h un d red- s e v en t y" &gt;  22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

1007D, if you submitted this article as a Good Article Nomination, you can't review your own nomination. If has truly abandoned this review, you should either re-submit it or see if you can get someone else to take up the review process. —Torchiest talkedits 20:15, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll reverse my thoughts. My prediction of this review will be recorded in a user subpage from me, but that's in my wiki-factory.  'I   `'/ I>  &lt; pronounced " o ne- h un d red- s e v en t y" &gt;  01:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Partially reverted.  'I   `'/ I>  &lt; pronounced " o ne- h un d red- s e v en t y" &gt;  02:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * This review is already done. I will fail the article and 1007D you need to re-submit it again as Torchiest says. — Legolas ( talk 2 me ) 07:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think the article is a epic fail. I will try to nominate it again soon.  'I   `'/ I>  &lt; pronounced " o ne- h un d red- s e v en t y" &gt;  07:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)