Talk:Vow (song)/GA2

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

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 00:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  00:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 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):
 * Formatting is fine, but there are quite a few prose issues:
 * The first sentence in the second paragraph of the lede is a bit too long and seems like a run-on to me. You should either divide it by a semicolon or make it two separate sentences.
 * The phrasing "The band felt that "Vow" was not representative of the album's genre-hopping body of work, although later came to appreciate the situation that led to the song becoming their debut" should be adjusted to "The band felt that "Vow" was not representative of the album's genre-hopping body of work, although 'they later came to appreciate the situation that led to the song becoming their debut".
 * "Midway through the recording sessions for the band's debut album, the band's label Mushroom Records secured the group an inclusion on Volume..." should be changed to "Midway through the recording sessions for the band's debut album, the band's label, Mushroom Records, secured the group an inclusion on Volume..."
 * "By May 1995, alternative radio across the country had picked up on "Vow"..." should be changed to "By May 1995, alternative radio stations across the country had picked up on "Vow"..."
 * "Mushroom founded the Discordant label for the sole purpose launching Garbage." should be changed to "Mushroom founded the Discordant label for the sole purpose of launching Garbage".
 * In the charting bits, changed the numbering from '#th' to "number x' or 'No. x' formatting.
 * The 'Other markets' section has some broken formatting for links.

Done those. Anything else, and are the images enough? igordebraga ≠ 02:48, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * Per WP:GACN, all three criteria are met.
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Covers all major aspects without getting too specific.
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * Not sure that the 'overwhelmingly positive' comment in the 'Reception' section is neutral. Perhaps 'very positive' or just 'positive' would work.
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * No issues here.
 * 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:
 * Alright, everything looks fine. Passed! I would recommend you add this to the rock and alternative music wikiprojects, but that is up to you.  Toa   Nidhiki  05  03:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)