Talk:The Number of the Beast (album)/GA1

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 16:56, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course!


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


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The last part of the first sentence, there is something missing ahead "the US", maybe "in"
 * And the second sentence also has the "in the US" at the end; maybe rephrase to remove repetition.
 * "and their last with " - Their last what? His last appearance?
 * ""new"" - why in quatation marks? If he debuted on this album, this should be mentioned in the lead
 * "According to several interviews with Bruce Dickinson, he" - "he" is Harris?
 * "song-writing" - this should be written together
 * "having to give what he calls a "moral contribution", i.e. having an influence on particular tracks without giving enough creative input to earn a writing credit.[6]" - sounds like noun + ing. Abbreviations should be spelled out, or replaced with better words
 * "an albums"
 * "having to write an albums worth of songs almost entirely from scratch for the first time.[3]" - needs rephrasing
 * B-side should be linked
 * Quotation marks in quotes should be replaced with apostrophes
 * "star struck" - what does that mean?
 * "90's" should be "90s" per WP:DECADE
 * "A Tribute to the Beast, Vol. 2 " should be italicized
 * "Sebastian Bach" "Skid Row" and "Iced Earth" should be linked
 * ""The Number of the Beast" quotation mark missing
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * How reliable is
 * 
 * (Firefox blocks this website)
 * 
 * Amazon? - remove; also you claim that all the information in the first section of "Appearance in media" is available in, which is totally incorrect
 * Youtube? - remove; easily fails WP:V and WP:RS
 * Myspace? - remove; similar situation as with Youtube.
 * Many references have no publisher, accessdate, etc-- ♫GoP♫ T C N 13:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 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):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Pass/Fail:

Comment
Hi, I have addressed all the issues that have been outlined so far.--Nerdtrap (talk) 21:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Replaced unsuitable refs (although how an amazon link which details the soundtrack is unacceptable I don't know). Removed Uncle Howie records because I couldn't find a replacement. Also removed the part about Nick Tershay for the same reasons (although I would have thought that an interview with the man himself would have been fine, even if it was on Youtube!!!).--Nerdtrap (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)