Talk:The Music Machine/GA1

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

Reviewer: Garagepunk66 (talk · contribs) 07:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be reviewing the article on the Music Machine. Due to my tight schedule, it may take a bit longer than usual, but I'll proceed as best I can. Garagepunk66 (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've done some edits on the article since taking the review, and the review process can now go to the next stage. One thing: we need to fine-hone the language a bit more in the heading to achieve a more neutral tone at the beginning of the article.  I'm still not quite sure about the wording.  I made a few changes there but we may need some more.  Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I went in just now and did a few things with some of the wording in some spots, but retaining the same content. I like the additional stuff from the Garage Satisfactions book--I must but it! Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I like the changes thus far. Let me know if there is anything I can do that will help.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and I like all of the detail that you pack into each sentence. Garagepunk66 (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Criteria:


 * 1) Prose is clear and precise: manual style guidelines for lead sections:
 * layout: OK
 * words to watch: OK (None)
 * list incorporation: OK


 * 2) Verifiable, with no original research: OK. All references are external and are come from third parties.
 * List of references: OK
 * Respects copyright laws: OK
 * Correct spelling and grammar: OK
 * All in-line citations from reliable sources: OK
 * Contains no orig. research: OK


 * 3) Broad in its coverage: OK.  The article explores the band's history in depth and detail.
 * Addresses main aspects of topic: OK
 * Stays focused on topic: OK.  The article stays on point form beginning to end.


 * 4) Neutral in tone: OK.  Language is neutral in tone.  There is no detectable bias.
 * 5) Illustrated by images: OK
 * Tagged w/ copyright or valid sues descriptions: OK
 * Images relevant to topic: OK.  Photo is not only relevant, but well-chosen, as it depicts the band in performance with their best known lineup.


 * Additional Comments:

It looks like most of the elements of criteria have been met. I have not yet gone in and checked the refs in detail and a few other things. I'll be looking into those. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm in the process of combing through the references, etc., and I really like what I'm seeing so far. I made of couple of minor tweaks.  I slightly adjusted the statement about his dissatisfaction with the musical conservatism of his earlier folk group to more closely adhere with what I interpreted in the source, but if I'm wrong, we can change it back--just let me know if it is a problem.  I found an extra reference about the M.M.'s influence on '70s punk.  I duplicated refs in a couple of places--maybe I'm crazy, I tend to like to see a ref at the end of every sentence (except in lead-outs, topic sentences, and statements that make obvious generalities), but that's just me.  Some editors go as far as to split sentences in half with refs, but I'm not into that.  It's just a matter of personal style, I guess.  I'm at the place where Bonniwell gave the group its name, but I think I'm going to take a rest.  I'll get back to the review tomorrow.  But, let me emphasize that I really like what is here a lot. Garagepunk66 (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as everything is alright thus far you can make any stylistic changes you want. I tried to incorporate some more books and liner notes with this articles than with my last projects, so apologies if that makes it a little more difficult. I think I found every ounce of reliable sources on the Internet that divulged new information (you wouldn't believe some of the Google search phrases I made to seek them out), so I don't think content will be of too much issue.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Final comments:

REVIWER'S COMMENTS: I like the article a lot. It has significantly been expanded and upgraded. 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 Music Machine 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) 05:22, 1 January 2016 (UTC)