Talk:Xtort/GA1

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

Reviewer: Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * There are many stubby sections in this article. The sections, "Video", "Singles", "Promotional material", and "Charts" could currently be combined into one section called "Release". See articles like Hybrid Theory for examples.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Per WP:LEAD, the lead section should not generally have citations. The lead should also summarize the information within the article which it currently does not as skips information about the release and reception of the album. Do not forget Manual_of_Style as Rolling Stone is missing italics in the infobox. Per WTA, words such as "However" should be removed. Try simply removing the however and changing this to "Stephen Thomas Erlewine of Allmusic said" yadda yadda yadda. Be sure to use the correct dash in the Personnel section (see WP:DASH for more information). Per WP:TABLE, there is no real reason that the chart history should be formatted how it is, as this can be more easily explained as prose. The article needs cleaning to live up to the standards of ALBUMS. You need a better ALT tag description than it currently has. See WP:ALT for details. The genres should be " delimited by a comma" and remember that these are not proper nouns, so the second genre should not get a capital letter. The Label that the album is one should be noted as the earliest label of release. Which one is it? Also, I'm not sure in this case but WP:SLASH might come in to play here. The list of producers should also be delimited by commas. WP:ALBUMS not longer uses reviews in the infobox. Continue to use the template used on articles such as Homogenic or remove this section. You may also want to try using template:singles in the infobox.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Look over Citing_sources. try using items such as template:cite web to at least use an access date for these web articles you are citing.The "April Fool's Day" message needs a bit of context. That message does indeed appear but so what? If we can expand on this or find information why he did it or who the message was aimed for, then we'd have a better fact. Otherwise, it just comes off as trivial. Also, which one is the joke one? What was the serious one? I can only see on in the cite.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * Lots of information here is uncited. Citation is needed for the where the album was recorded, it's release date in the infobox and recording period, the singles released from the album. Much of the information about it's various releases is not cited either.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * This article could use some background information. Is there any information about production? style? guest musicians? choice of production location? etc.? This article will not pass without some sort of production history or background section.
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article needs quite a bit of work and cleaning, but with proper information above, I think it still has the ability to become a GA with a lot of work. Good Luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article needs quite a bit of work and cleaning, but with proper information above, I think it still has the ability to become a GA with a lot of work. Good Luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Pass or Fail:
 * This article needs quite a bit of work and cleaning, but with proper information above, I think it still has the ability to become a GA with a lot of work. Good Luck! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the comments! I'm actually in the middle of working on it right now. Torchiest (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Manual of style issues

 * Removed citations from lead
 * Improved summary
 * Fixed other minor errors
 * Removed extra label on release, however, I think the slash is required, as the label that released the album was Wax Trax!, but they had been purchased by TVT at that point, while retaining creative control. I'm not if that explains it, or if I would need to cite the label name somehow. Torchiest (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's looking much better! I still would like to see some sort of information about the production of the album. A lot of the "history" section could be moved to a "Promotion" section. (See articles like The Fame for examples). Some information still needs citations like the release date of that single and much of the information in that box for Release info. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good job on the article! It could use some re-organizing which I make just do myself since it's easier to tackle that way. The only things I'd ask you to pull over before I give it my final review is that some sections of the release box are not cited. I'd honestly try to change that section to prose and ignore the rest of the uncited information. As this is the English wikipedia dealing with a German band, the only real points of interest release wise would be it's earliest release, it's release in Germany and it's release in the English-speaking market. Other than that, I think the introduction to the article could be expanded as well as it's only one paragraph with no much information. Great work though! This article has come a long way. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Final version?
I converted the release section to prose, and added some more to the lead. I think it accurately reflects the contents of the article, brushing over all subjects in brief but adequate detail. Not sure what you want to do as far as re-organizing, but since I think all other issues are addressed, feel free to move things around if you think it would help. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 04:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've done a bit of re-organizing. Sorry about the lateness of all my replies. Great job! The article is much better. It is a pass! Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for passing my first GA! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:40, 4 April 2010 (UTC)