Talk:Absolute Garbage/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be reviewing this article shortly. As this is a somewhat lengthy article, the review may take between 3-7 days to be complete. Please do not directly edit the template I am using - if you would like to address or comment on a concern I listed, please do so under a separate subheader. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Please note all my solutions here are simply my take - if you would rather solve the issue a different way, that is perfectly fine, as long as it still addresses the concern I listed. :)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

1a) - Excellent prose. Only real concern I have is that the second paragraph is one sentence - it feels sort of like a run-on to me. Additionally, a period is missing at the end of the first sentence in the "Album promotion" section.

1b) - ~~The lede is too large - per WP:LEDE#LENGTH, only articles with over 15,000 characters should have three paragraphs. By my count, this has 11,000. Reduce the lede to two paragraphs.~~

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

2a) - No problem here.

2b) - Per WP:GACN, all direct quotes must be internally cited. By my count, there are five quotes that are not immediately cited after the conclusion of the quote. The 'Track listing' section is not cited (As a personal note, I would find it useful to use Template:Track listing to list writing credits for the songs). The 'Release history' section is not cited, although the data is cited earlier in the article, so it is not vital to do so. The 'Absolute Garbage DVD' section is not citied it its first paragraph. While uncited, the 'alternative rock' and 'electronica' labels are not controversial, and thus do not count as OR.

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Excellent job in this one.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Article does not claim the album as anything it is not.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
No issues here.
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):
No issues here.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

The only thing that might remain it's the cited quote thing (though the first two in "Compiling" are under the same ref)... or not? igordebraga ≠ 16:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those still remain. There is one in the 'Compiling Absolute Garbage' section, and multiple ones in the 'Reception' section. While those are cited at the end of the sentence, they must be cited immediately if the quote is interrupted in the sentence. Otherwise, that is all that is left. Toa Nidhiki05 21:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to reference the same source twice in the same sentence, but done it anyway. igordebraga ≠ 02:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that internal citations are required for any contentious material - be it statistics, quotes, etc. A direct quote is required to be sourced immediately because it is contentious - even waiting for the end of the sentence is not enough. It allows the reader to immediately read - and confirm - that the asserted statement is true.

Aside from that, "The band's drummer, Butch Vig felt that Absolute Garbage would be "a full stop on part of our career"," is the only sentence left that violates this. I fixed it myself, so the article passes. Good work. :) Toa Nidhiki05 18:06, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]