Talk:The Uplift Mofo Party Plan/GA1

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

Reviewer: Beloved  Freak  16:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * The article is generally well-written but there are a few minor issues with the prose and style.
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * A few minor source problems.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Fairly broad, but would benefit from some contemporary reception.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * The article is written in a well-balanced and neutral way.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * I can see nothing in the article history or talkpage that indicate any problems with instability or edit-warring.
 * 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):
 * Only one image used; it has an appropriate non-free use rationale and is of low resolution, no caption needed
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

I think it's an interesting article that is very close to meeting the Good Article criteria. Most of the issues I have with the article are to do with the prose which, although generally well-written, has some awkward bits and some ambiguities. I've done a small bit of copy-editing so please check to make sure I haven't inadvertently changed the meaning of anything, and that you're happy with my changes. I'll go through the article and list issues by section. Feel free to disagree or query any points I've made as you go along.


 * No links to disambiguation pages
 * some external links not working
 * Corensearchbot showed no copyright problems, The Earwig tool showed a few possible problems but all seem to be reverse infringements/ false positives or are not loading at all.

Lead
 * Prose and style issues
 * Is the band called Red Hot Chili Peppers or the Red Hot Chili Peppers or The Red Hot Chili Peppers? The first two seem to be used interchangeably, and the third is used in the infobox. This needs to be consistent.
 * It is now Red Hot Chili Peppers in every instance. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "It is the only studio album..." - not knowing the history of the band, I found this a little strange. I think it could use a brief explanation, eg. Because of changes to the lineup following their 1983 record deal, it is the only studio album... I don't think you need to mention Slovak's death as you get to that in the lead's second paragraph. Remember, the lead should act as a kind of stand-alone summary of the whole article, so try not to create mysteries in the lead!
 * I added a bit more, I hope it is less confusing now. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that was partly reverted, and I can see Indoplug's reasoning. I think it's ok as it is now. Beloved  Freak  18:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "...content with the work on the album, with Flea referring to the album..." - grammatically, this "noun + ing" construction is often seen as awkward (see more here) so could be reworded to something like content with the work on the album, and Flea referred to it (note: also trying to avoid quick repetition of the album)
 * I reworded the sentence, but I am currently working on other ways to say "the album" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...Kiedis and Flea, while similarly devasted, decided to continue making music..." - not sure if "while similarly devastated" (spelling now corrected! :) ) is 100% needed, we would probably assume that anyway. Up to you.
 * Wow hahaha thank you for catching that spelling mistake! I agree that it is kind of assumed, so I removed that part. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * they recruited a guitarist; did they not need to recruit a drummer also? Don't worry about this in the lead, but it makes me curious... Also, don't mention things in the lead that aren't elsewhere - Frusciante isn't mentioned later and probably should be, as part of a closing sentence on the new direction of the band following this album.
 * Added Chad Smith's joining of the band, also added info about Smith and Frusciante joining in the "Release and reception" and "Promotional tour and Slovak's death" sections. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * the lead should summarise the main points of the article (WP:LEAD). I'd argue that it's worth mentioning their new producer in the lead, otherwise I think you've got it covered.
 * Mentioned the new producer in the lead. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Background
 * "...Red Hot Chili Peppers received a record deal..." - is "received" the best way of wording it? signed a record deal perhaps? Isn't that the more usual way of putting it?
 * Changed it to your suggestion. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have "Kiedis and Flea hired..." shortly followed by "...vocalist Anthony Kiedis and bassist Flea..." - the surname & descriptions should be in the first mention: vocalist Anthony Kiedis and bassist Flea hired... followed by ...Kiedis and Flea.... Similarly, "...hired Jack Sherman as guitarist..." can be followed simply by ...replaced Sherman with founding....
 * Ooops! I have fixed it so now all the first mentions are full names and linked and all other mentions are only surnames. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The second mention of Hillel Slovak in this paragraph should be unlinked and surname only: ...Flea replaced Sherman with founding member Slovak, who had quit his band...
 * Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The group's George Clinton-produced second album, Freaky Styley (1985), was Slovak's first effort with the band" - I don't think it's necessary to state that it was his first effort with the band - that is obvious from the previous sentences. Perhaps "The group released their George Clinton-produced second album, Freaky Styley, in 1985?
 * "In the spring of 1986..." - try to avoid seasonal references since readers on the other side of the world will have the opposite seasons (WP:SEASON). Reword this to say "early 1986", or specify a month.
 * Changed to "early 1986" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...the band decided to begin work on their upcoming album" - is this when they actually began work on it? If so, just say "...the band began work on their upcoming album" - I noticed a few "decided to"s through the article, some of which may be redundant.
 * I said that the group "decided it was time to work on their upcoming album" I hope that is better. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok.. Beloved  Freak  18:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I also noticed quite a lot of repetition of "the band" throughout the article. For example, "EMI gave the band a budget of $5,000 to record a demo tape, and the band chose to work with producer Keith Levene, because he shared the band's interest in drugs." Some repetition is probably unavoidable, but try not to have it in the same sentence or consecutive sentences. Either use the band name (if you think it's too unwieldy, reducing it to "Chili Peppers " seems to have been acceptable elsewhere. There are also places you could just substitute "them" or "they".
 * Changed some of them to "Chili Peppers", I might change more, how do you think it looks now? Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Levene and Slovak decided to put aside $2,000..." - again, "decided to"? Or just, Levene and Slovak put aside $2,000...?
 * Removed "decided to" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "During the recording and subsequent tour of Freaky Styley, Kiedis and Slovak were dealing with debilitating heroin addictions..." - the tense isn't quite right here, a we're talking about a period before the start of the Uplift album. So, Styley, Kiedis and Slovak had been dealing with... would be better. Would you say (according to sources) that their addictions started or developed during Freaky Styley? If so, you could say that, or perhaps Since the recording and subsequent tour... as it would make it clearer why you are suddenly mentioning an earlier album.
 * Comment: My sources say that Kiedis had been using drugs since age eleven, but his addictions reached an apex at that time.  Also on Behind the Music, it is said that during that time, Kiedis noticed for the first time that Slovak had developed a heroin addiction of his own.  How would you recommend that I put that in? Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, so as not to go into too much detail, maybe something like "Since the recording and subsequent tour of Freaky Styley, both Kiedis and Slovak had been dealing with debilitating heroin addictions...". Although it doesn't make Kiedis' earlier problems clear, it is still accurate. Or, if you felt that was misleading, you could avoid mentioning time at all and just say something along the lines of "Both Kiedis and Slovak had debilitating heroin addictions, which grew worse as the band was preparing to record Uplift". Beloved  Freak  18:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Due to his addiction, Kiedis "didn't have same the drive or desire to come up with ideas or lyrics"..." - it seems strange to need to quote here. Can this be paraphrased to avoid the quote?
 * Paraphrased the quote, it is now "Due to his addiction, Kiedis lacked the motivation to contribute to the band musically, and appeared at rehearsal "literally asleep"". Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "He was briefly kicked out of the band..." - kicked out is a little informal/colloquial. I'm also not sure that you can be "briefly kicked out" since being "kicked out" surely refers to the process of being made to leave, not the length of time that it stays in effect. Maybe He was asked to leave the band to undergo drug rehabilitation or something like that?
 * It is now "He was asked to leave the band in order to undergo drug rehabilitation." Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I think "get clean" is also a bit colloquial. Use it in quotes if it is a quote, or reword a bit more formally.
 * Changed to "which prompted Kiedis to quit using heroin cold turkey". I'm not sure if that is better, but the phrase is used on John Frusciante's page, which is a featured article. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, to be honest, they both sound borderline to me, but that's just my opinion. I could see other editors accepting either, so I wouldn't complain if you changed it back. Up to you.-- Beloved Freak  18:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "He called his mother in Michigan for guidance, who sent him to drug rehabilitation" - how did she "send" him to rehab? Presumably she either suggested it/asked him to go, or made it possible by paying for it?
 * Clarified, it is now "He visited his mother in Michigan for guidance, who drove him to drug rehabilitation immediately after picking him up from the airport upon seeing his unhealthy appearance." Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "stint in rehab" - don't shorten rehabilitation
 * Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Do we know where he went to rehab? Not vital, but might be interesting since you mention a plane ride home.
 * Added info from his autobiography, which says that he stayed at a Salvation Army clinic in Grand Rapids. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not sure if maybe you've added a tiny bit too much now as it's not all directly relevant to the album. I would perhaps lose the bit of the sentence about detesting rehab/others understanding him, but really it's up to you, it's not going to affect the GA review. -- Beloved Freak  18:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "Burgeoning producer Michael Beinhorn..." - I'm not sure producers can "burgeon", can they? Also, it doesn't seem to ring true with the following "after several unsuccessful projects on other labels".
 * Changed to "aspiring" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In quotes, ellipses should have a space on either side of them. (Two instances of this need fixing).
 * Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...a man working at EMI reportedly approached Beinhorn..." - why "reportedly"? Who reported this? Is there some doubt over the truth of this fact?
 * I'm not really sure why I put that there, I have removed it. I guess it sounded good at the time or something haha. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Recording and production
 * "the Capitol Records Building." - perhaps say that this is in Hollywood
 * Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "The recording process for the album was difficult; Kiedis would frequently disappear to seek drugs." - the semi-colon here feels a little strange. Presumably the process was difficult because he would frequently disappear? If so, say so.
 * Added "as" instead of the semi-colon. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Having read the previous section, it was my understanding that Kiedis was clean now, so it's a little confusing to read that he's disappearing to seek drugs. Perhaps mention first that he had started using again, and then say that he kept disappearing and made the recording sessions difficult.
 * Clarified that he started taking drugs again Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Kiedis decided to take drugs again to celebrate his new music" - there's something about this that sounds slightly odd. I'd be interested to see what the source actually says. Presumably he took something as a "one off" to celebrate. As it is, it almost sounds like he decided to become an addict again to celebrate. I know this is probably splitting hairs, and if that's how the source puts it, then fine, it just sounds a bit funny to me.
 * I agree, I had difficulty wording it as it sounds really strange. I have now changed it to "After fifty days of sobriety, Kiedis decided to take drugs again as a one-time attempt to celebrate his new music, which led to his resumed addiction." Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have "Beinhorn recalls that "There were points ...." where earlier, you had "Beinhorn recalled of the situation: "Though their music ..."" - recalls or recalled? The tense should match. Past tense probably better as in "he later recalled", since he's not continually recalling right now.
 * Changed to "recalled" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...the band was upset at his flakiness..." - I'm not sure about flakiness, can you use a more formal/less colloquial word here? (or put it in quotes if that's the word they used)
 * Changed to "the band was upset at his frequent disappearances" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...Jack Irons, who added "such an important..." - who had added surely? This comes from an earlier time period doesn't it?
 * Comment: The feeling I got from the source was that Kiedis believed that Irons' rejoining added the newfound chemistry. I changed it to "The band was musically inspired by the rejoining of their original drummer Jack Irons, whose return added "such an important and different element to our chemistry."" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "I'm so extremely proud of everybody's work - it is at times genius" - per WP:DASH, this hypen should be an emdash.
 * Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Music
 * "During the recording of Freaky Styley, Kiedis and Slovak indulged in heavy cocaine use" - again, we're talking about an earlier times, so During the recording of Freaky Styley, Kiedis and Slovak had indulged in heavy cocaine use
 * Added "had" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...the song "Skinny Sweaty Man" from the album." - because of the mention of Freaky Styley, it's not 100% clear what you mean by "the album". I wonder if this sentence could be slightly reworded to avoid ambiguity?
 * Specified that "Skinny Sweaty Man" is from Uplift. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Kiedis wrote "Me and My Friends" while driving home from San Francisco with his childhood friend Joe Walters, which "came together nicely."" - came together nicely here applies to his childhood friend, so the sentence needs rewording slightly.
 * It is now "Kiedis wrote 'Me and My Friends', a song which 'came together nicely', while driving home from San Francisco with his childhood friend Joe Walters." Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "On the album, Flea was highly influenced by funk artists" - I don't think you need to say "On the album" here.
 * Removed Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Although his early technique centered largely around traditional punk rock bass lines,[28] his style transformed while playing with Red Hot Chili Peppers." - I think that most of the historical background in the article is appropriate, this is the only sentence that I think is maybe not really relevant here as it's more about Flea's style developing through the time he's with the band, not just this album. Let me know what you think.
 * Comment: I agree, I feel that it is not really necessary as Flea's musical development is detailed on his individual page. I removed a bit of that stuff, how is it looking now? Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good. Beloved  Freak  18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Release and reception
 * "EMI originally refused the album..." - this sentence is a bit awkward, maybe reorder it?
 * It is now "EMI originally refused to release the album unless the band changed the name of the song 'Party on Your Pussy'; the band subsequently renamed the song 'Special Secret Song Inside'." Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Link "certified gold" - there a few options, but I'd probably link it to RIAA certification
 * Linked to RIAA certification Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Allmusic and Consequence of Sound are websites so shouldn't be in italics (WP:ITALICS
 * Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Flea has referred to the album as "the 'rockingest' record"..." - I like this bit of into, but I'm not sure it should be in this section as it's not a critic's view. Maybe the end of the previous section?
 * I wrote a new paragraph about John Frusciante and their new following, and added it to the end of that. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, it's still not strictly "reception", but that looks better now with the context pf reaction from fans & Frusciante etc. -- Beloved Freak  18:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, be careful of repetition: "However, in The New Rolling Stone Record Guide, 4th Edition, author Nathan Brackett was highly critical of the album, giving it two out of five stars. He felt that the album was a minor improvement over the band's last two albums, but felt that the group's offbeat humor detracted from the album" - don't go overboard on synonyms, but use pronouns where possible, or even the name of the album occasionally.
 * I came up with a few synonyms, the sentence is now "author Nathan Brackett was highly critical of Uplift, giving it two out of five stars. He felt that the album was a minor improvement over the band's last two efforts, but felt that the group's offbeat humor detracted from the album" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotional tour and Slovak's death
 * Where was the tour of? International? National?
 * It was an international tour. Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Deciding to give sobriety a chance, both Kiedis and Slovak stopped using heroin..." - "Deciding to give sobriety a chance" sounds a little out of place since Kiedis already decided that, earlier, didn't he? To be honest, I think you could just start the sentence with "Kiedis and Slovak stopped using heroin..."
 * Removed "Deciding to give sobriety a chance" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "...at one point Slovak had a mental breakdown and was unable to play a show..." - mental breakdown is a little vague/ambiguous. Is that what the source says? Fine if so, but if there are a few more details, they wouldn't hurt at this point.
 * Comment: Basically the source says that he began sobbing uncontrollably backstage before the show, and refused to go on stage. How should I put that in a way that doesn't sound overly dramatic? Basilisk4u (talk) 16:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, I'd say it's ok as it is, or you could say something like "became too upset to go onstage".-- Beloved Freak  16:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * "...but was briefly kicked out of the band..." - same issue as before
 * "After his autopsy, authorities determined that he had died on June 25, 1988 due to a heroin overdose." - After the autopsy? Or at the autopsy?
 * Changed to "During the autopsy" Basilisk4u (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Track listing and personnel ...
 * This information is fairly easily verifiable, but you could always add a citation for each of these lists, which more people are doing these days. Either to somewhere like Allmusic, or to the liner notes.
 * You mention in the track listing that "Special Secret Song Inside" was renamed to its previous title - I would mention this in the prose too, perhaps where you discuss the title change in the first place
 * As you've separated the personnel into sections, I would expect to find Beinhorn under "production". So, I would put his name under both relevant sections, like this:
 * Additional musicians
 * Michael Beinhorn – background vocals


 * Production
 * Michael Beinhorn – producer

References
 * Is there any reason why the bibliography comes before the notes? I'm not sure it's a problem, but it's more usual to see the notes first then the bibliography (see WP:CITESHORT)
 * Don't link the books to a commercial site like amazon. There's actually no need to link a url at all, but if you really want to, link it to google books or worldcat or something.
 * The citations in the bibliography shouldn't have page numbers, as you specify those in the notes.
 * Scar Tissue should be in italics
 * In the bibliography, you've linked Kiedis' name, but not Slovak's - be consistent
 * My mistake, different Slovak-- Beloved Freak  11:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In the notes section, if you're specifying a page range, use pp. rather than p. (this can be done in the templates using the parameter "pages = " instead of "page = ")
 * This is not required at all, but it can be kind to your readers who aren't familiar with iso-formatted dates to spell out the months (ie. February 5, 2011 instead of 2011-02-05) Many readers from outside North America will not actually know if that is February 5 or May 2.
 * There are more inconsistencies in the notes formatting, but it's not really GA-related, so I'll try to fix it up myself.


 * Sourcing issues
 * Reliability of sources look good
 * One of the youtube links no longer works as the video has been removed.
 * The other Youtube link does not appear to be official, so I'm concerned about a copyright violation there. We can't link to copyright violations.
 * The Billboard ref (currently #30) needs its link updating


 * Broad in its coverage?

Release and reception
 * I expected to find some information about the singles here. Fair enough if none of them charted, but I'd expect to at least see which songs were released, and when.
 * I added information about the "Fight Like a Brave" and "Behind the Sun" singles, but I was unable to find anything about "Me and My Friends". Strangely, the song's wikipedia page states that it is disputed whether a single for the song was even released.  Should I just say that it wasn't released?  I feel that if it was, there would be some information about it somewhere. Basilisk4u (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would just remove mention of it as a single (just in the infobox I think?) and leave the rest as it is.


 * Is there any information on how the album did in other countries? If not, that's ok.-- Beloved Freak  22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I haven't been able to find anything after a lot of searching. I will keep on the lookout though.Basilisk4u (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem, would be nice, but if you can't find any, that's fine.


 * Are any of these music reviews contemporary to the album or are they all retrospective? I notice that the Rolling Stone one is from 2004, and given the age of the other two websites, I expect they were also after the fact. We could really do with some idea of what critics thought of the album at the time it was released.
 * These are also very difficult to find. Again, I will keep my eyes peeled for some of these reviews, as I agree they would add a lot to the article. Basilisk4u (talk) 16:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ok. I looked on google news and books (which includes some magazines) and couldn't see anything. I'm sure there are contemporary reviews out there, but for GA, I think we're ok with what you've got. You've mentioned a few reviews so we have a good general idea of how the album ahs been received. If you were going for FAC, i'd say, definitely get some more from the time it was released. You might find someone that could help you either at one of the relevant wikiprojects, or at WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. You might find someone with access to newsaper archives, or who has a stack of old music magazines.-- Beloved Freak  22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Note to self: not spot checked any online sources yet
 * I've spot checked 3 online sources and they all supported the facts they claim to, and I found no plagiarism or close paraphrasing. most of the sources used are offline, so WP:AGF on those.-- Beloved Freak  16:38, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll put the review on hold for 7 days to allow you to address these issues. I will have it watchlisted, feel free to ask any questions or make any comments. -- Beloved Freak  12:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey! Thank you for such a thorough review, these suggestions will definitely make improve the article a lot!  I just came back from a trip to Spain where I had no internet access, and I'm sorry for not responding earlier.  I will get to work and add comments where needed. Basilisk4u (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem! I can extend the hold a few days if necessary as I think it's definitely close to GA. -- Beloved Freak  12:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it's been on hold 11 days now, I'm wondering if you feel that you're close to finishing? As I said, I'm happy for it to go on a little longer, especially as you were on holiday initially. Improvements can still be made to the prose here and there, but I think the only things remaining that I'm concerned about with regards to the GA criteria are the you tube links and the points I mentioned about it being broad in coverage.-- Beloved Freak  16:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I am mostly finished. I am not sure I will be able to find some of the information you have requested, but if I do find something, I will absolutely add it to the article.  Also, I think that the information from the one youtube link is not really essential to the article and I feel it can be deleted, since the sourcing is not appropriate for wikipedia anyway. I think that's the only youtube link left.  Thank you so much for your time and patience. Basilisk4u (talk) 17:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're going to have to lose the youtube reference, and the sentence it backs up (unless you can find that info anywhere else). There's no other info there, like a TV show it was taken from or anything, so it's impossible to verify. Luckily, although it's nice to have his influences there, it won't detract too much from the article to remove that.


 * I'm going to assume that the Raw magazine was added by someone who saw the original, since there is more info in the citation than is present in the online source. That said, I've removed the link to the online version. It's not really reliable, even if it was Frusciante's website, and it's not even clear if it was an official website, or a fansite. As an offline source though, with the info that is there, the link is only a courtesy link, so it's not required for WP:V. -- Beloved Freak  22:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I took out the youtube link and the accompanying sentence. I also agree that the Raw link didn't look really official.  Are there any other issues that are standing out right now that I can address?  I may have missed something. Basilisk4u (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, there are still a few places in the prose that seem a bit awkward, and would recommend getting an uninvolved person to copyedit at some point if you're looking to take this further (quick example: not really sure what "unstable drug use" really means, needs clarifying, or just "drug use"). However, I think it's ok now in terms of GA criterion #1 (reasonably well written). I can't see any outstanding issues so I'm happy to list the article as a good article. Well done! -- Beloved Freak  11:07, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yay!! Thank you so much.  The article has improved a lot thanks to your suggestions. Basilisk4u (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)