Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain/GA1

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to do a review of this. First things that leap out are the lead is probably to short per WP:MOSLEAD, there's a lengthy paragraph in "Post-split" without any references, and there aren't many images - I'd have thought the 2007 reunion would have least thrown up a few fan shots, with one or two being nice enough to licence as CC-BY-SA. Still, you can only use what you have. More later.....

Okay, specific comments, running from top to bottom are :


 * The lead is a bit short. Other things that could go in are brief mentions of the albums, notable former members (particularly Gillespie) and what happened during their hiatus.


 * Maybe worth mentioning their first gig resulted in a punch up?


 * According to the Penny Black article, Gillespie was only a temporary replacement - worth adding?


 * File:Jesus And Mary Chain Never Understand.ogg is tagged as requiring attention, and the description of it requires a citation, otherwise it sounds like original research


 * The sentence on the Peel sessions doesn't scan quite right. Maybe change to "Following an earlier session for John Peel at the end of 1984, they were invited back for a second session in February 1985)" - also, do you have a citation for this?


 * Semicolon following "Phil Spector" probably wants to be a full stop.


 * "On returning to the UK they toured the UK" probably wants to be "On returning to the UK they started a tour there"


 * Reviews of Darklands has a "citation needed" tagged


 * Reception of Automatic "not received quite as well as its predecessors" needs a citation


 * Douglas Hart's post Mary Chain career needs a citation


 * Hope Sandoval performing on "Perfume" can also be cited to reference #41


 * Jim being drunk at the House of Blues gig in 1999 has a "citation needed", and being a negative or potentially defamatory comment about a living person requires attention.


 * The Independent interview describing the split can probably be found online somewhere and linked to.


 * First whole paragraph in "Post-split" is unreferenced - I have tagged it as such so hopefully people will come to the rescue quickly


 * Reference #45 is a dead link


 * "a new album by the band is in the works" probably wants to read "a new album by the band was in the works" - unless it's still work in progress after 4 years!


 * The Guitar Geek reference looks like an unreliable source. I'd get rid of this entire section


 * Would it be worth adding a paragraph of bands they influenced? If they're as legendary as claimed, it shouldn't be hard to ferret out a couple of references saying this.


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

Taking the above comments into account, I can summarise them as follows :
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * See comments about lead
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * As noted above, I've had to add a refimprove tag to one section, plus there are several other places that either tagged as requiring a citation or I think need one. Most of the sources seem to be reliable, apart from Guitar Geek and the dead link
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * As noted in the above comments, I think there's a few things that should be added in order for the article to be comprehensive
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * Nothing particularly unstable seems to have occurred in the past year from a cursory look at the history and the talk page
 * 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):
 * As mentioned above, the audio sample has a "requires attention" comment. As seen at the bottom of the article, Commons has a couple of free photos of the Reid brothers which would work well added in mid-points in the article. While a Good Article doesn't require photos, I think we can do more in this area.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Quite a bit of work to do to get this to GA status, but hopefully doable within a week, so I'm going to put this on hold pending the above suggestions. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite a bit of work to do to get this to GA status, but hopefully doable within a week, so I'm going to put this on hold pending the above suggestions. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the past week, the only evidence of work has been removing the "Equipment" section, and the nominator has not directly addressed any issues listed here. I regret, therefore, I'm going to have to fail this. Sorry. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)