Talk:The Electric Prunes/GA1

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

Reviewer: Garagepunk66 (talk · contribs) 02:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I am here to write review on the article, The Electric Prunes, which is currently being nominated for good article status:

CRITERIA:
 * 1) Prose is clear and precise. (yes) Complies with manual style guidelines for lead sections, layout, owrds to watch, list incorporation, etc. (yes)
 * 2) Verifiable, with no original research. (yes, verifiable and no orig. research) Contains list of references and respects copyright laws. (yes) Correct spelling and grammar. (yes)  All in-line citations are form reliable sources. (yes)  Contains no orig. research. (none)
 * 3) Broad in its coverage. (yes) Addresses main aspects of topic. (yes)  Stays focused on topic. (yes)
 * 4) Neutral in tone. (yes)
 * 5) Illustrated by images. (yes); Tagged w/ copyright or valid sues descriptions. (yes) Images relevant to topic. (yes)

REVIWER'S COMMENTS: I like the article a lot. It appears not been evaluated for a long time, because it currently is still ranked in the Start Class, which is no longer a fair classification. Over the years the article has grown exponentially and has been subject to numerous additions and improvements. The article now displays all of the hallmarks that are required for G.A.: It is now informative and well-written with smooth, clear prose, written in an interesting, yet neutral style. All of its contents appear in my best judgment to be accurate, and the article is well-sourced from top to bottom. I read through many of the texts of the sources and the article seems to go hand-in-hand with the way the various sources describe the facts. The article is now comprehensive and aptly divided into appropriate sections and sub-sections, which are helpful to the reader. The article discusses the history of the Electric Prunes with both depth and scope, and provides the reader not only with a thorough briefing about the history of their career, but also an understanding of their creative approach and the nature of their music. I highly recommend this article for G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

ADDENDUM TO REVIEW: I was notified by Ritchie333 that there were some issues that needed to be resolved. TheGracefulslick has gone in and made the necessary corrections. Let me enumerate the issues raised, which have been fixed: With these changes now accomplished, the article should be re-classified as G.A. Garagepunk66 (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The word, "motifs" should read as singular "motif." (now fixed)
 * Album serial #'s must be displayed in citation. (now done)
 * Page #'s for booklets must (when possible) be shown. (now done)
 * Excessively long quote in first body paragraph. (has now been omitted)