Talk:The White Stripes/GA1

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

Hi, nice to meet you.
 * Your Notes section needs a lot of work. It looks like it was done by three different people in three different styles. Sometimes templates are used; sometimes not. Sometimes cites are "Retrieved"; sometimes they're "accessed". Rolling Stone is a "megazine". I think David Fricke may be erroneously called David Fridge once (unless here are two...). There are links that are repeated and need to be named refs. Etc etc. All in all, a good long afternoon's work should be put into cleaning these up. I suggest you use templates consistently, wherever possible. Their use is certainly not required, but they do help keep things consistent.
 * If you go to FAC you're gonna get dinged repeatedly for the reliability of those websites.. some of them look little better than blogs. Try to stick with famous, established websites.
 * I really dislike the section where seven cites follow one brief sentence. remove the less reliable of these.
 * One of your links was blacklisted... squidoo. I rmv'd it.
 * I'll keep looking.
 * Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 08:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Thanks for your contributions and reccommendations. The notes section has been repaired, and its references have been converted to consistent templates that all match now; they also all say "retrieved" now, instead of "accessed". Additionally, FAC sites were removed, as well the excessive citations following the brief sentence you mentioned (7 cites were reduced to 3). The "megazine" and "Fridge" errors are fixed. Let me know if anything else needs to be fixed, but right now it looks good to go. Tim010987 (talk) 00:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, FAC means WP:FAC, or Featured article candidates. What I mean was that if you try to take this article through the review process that leads to becoming an FA or Featured Article, you may receive several comments regarding the reliability of some of the web links.
 * This article will probably pass GA this week, but please do not take it immediately to WP:FAC. In my opinion, this article is not even close to FA standards yet, although I'm certain that hard-working dedicated editors such as yourself will bring it there eventually! You should also find experienced copy editors to help you.
 * Before going to FA, it really needs some serious copy editing. The prose is pretty much good enough for GA in my opinion, but it needs a lot of work before FA. Look for example at clumsy sentences like this: "White also uses a Digitech whammy pedal which creates among other things an octave lower to what is played on the guitar, which he uses most notably on the songs 'Seven Nation Army' and 'The Hardest Button to Button'."
 * But don't worry about the prose too much now. It's mostly good enough for GA.
 * BUT&mdash;
 * I don't mechanically insist upon at least one citation per paragraph (many GA reviewers do, or at least they did not too long ago). However, there are still some uncited things that need to be cited. The whole bit about "Hey everybody here's Meg White" etc. stuck out in that respect.
 * The "Band Motifs" section... I'm not sure what to do with that. Do other articles on bands&mdash;particularly WP:FA articles on bands&mdash;have that kind of section? If you keep the section, it stands out as easily the worst of the entire article. For example, the Relationships subsection has only one sentence about Relationships. The whole Motifs section is largely unreferenced, and I am not even certain that it should be included. If you include it, try to find the best possible references.
 * Some of the quotes looked a little long... be aware that per WP:MOSQUOTE, if a quote is more than four lines long, it should be enclosed in "".
 * I'll keep looking. Keep up the good work! Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 02:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * double-checking image licensing. will get back to you. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 04:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

"First off, there should be one separate FUR [Fair Use rationale] for each article a nonfree image is used in, so the images would need another one for the band article. More importantly, however, is that if they are used in the infoboxes of the actual albums, there's no compelling reason they meet crit. 8 of WP:NFCC; you're better off removing them from the band article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 17:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)"
 * I'm gonna copy/paste a reply from Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) about the images... essentially, the two images that are album covers are probably not acceptable for use in this article. You may need to go back to flickr and look for more images:

Okay, I removed the two images, as well as the "Band motifs" section. I 'blockquoted' the longer quotes, cited the "Hey everybody..." quote you mentioned, and fixed the clumsy sentence. Are we now ready for GA? Tim010987 (talk) 11:47, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

PASS GA
Thanks for all your hard work. I'm gonna PASS GA. Let me repeat myself, though: please don't take this article straight to WP:FAC. In my personal opinion it needs (at least) to have one or two good copy editors go over it. I'm really not well-versed in the ins and outs of which websites are or aren't reliable for rock music, so you should also find someone experienced in that area to lend you a hand.

Keep up the good work!Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 12:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)