Talk:Silent Alarm/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hello all. I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, so check back soon for the result and my comments. Timmeh! 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Checklist and analysis

I'll have the checklist of the GA criteria here along with my critique when I finish my review. Timmeh! 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   The only thing to watch in this area is linking to other articles. Be careful of overlinking.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This is good. However, I suggest a bit of reworking in the writing and recording section, as I can tell from reading that it was put together rather quickly and isn't perfectly focused. For a an example of a very well-written writing/recording section, see No Line on the Horizon. The section for this article does not need to be as long as that one, but I suggest using the overall structure and how it was written generally.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Perfectly neutral. Good job on this part.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Apart from the (corrected) writing and recording section, the aforementioned overlinking, and minor formatting issues (which I corrected), the article looks good enough to pass GA. Thanks and good luck improving the article further. Timmeh! 17:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Other comments

If anybody has anything to say or ask relating to this review, don't be afraid to speak your mind. Timmeh! 23:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

• Important comment I have not finished reading the article, but I have found a serious issue that needs some work in order for the article to pass GA. The background section contains four paragraphs, three of which describe the formation of the band, not the album. There is only one paragraph about the writing/recording process. There should be a section called "writing and recording", "recording and production", or something similar, instead of the background section currently in the article. In that section, just expand on the last paragraph currently in the background section. Talk about the writing and recording process, basically. The story about the formation of the band should either be cut out completely or shortened to what is relevant to this album; this would be maybe what the band was doing right before starting work on this album, such as touring. All that is needed are two or three paragraphs about the recording process, in chronological order and cited with appropriate references of course. I'll check back over the next couple of days to see how that is coming along, and in the meantime I will put the review on hold. Timmeh! 04:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I can't seem to find anything on this. I'll keep looking, but for now I've added some to the section; see what you think of that.  GARDEN  12:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Section has been reworded and material added and repositioned. It now deals explicitly with the subject matter and the above concerns.Rafablu88 (talk) 13:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you for the fast response. I'll get to reading the rest of the article and finishing the review sometime today. Timmeh! 16:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank YOU for the thorough comments and super-quick review. Impressive.Rafablu88 (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Thank the both of you for your speed and determination. I'm pleased to have had the honour to work in your shadow :D  GARDEN  20:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)