 |
Björk was one of the Arts good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. |
|
|
|
|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: |
|
This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other concerns about edits related to a living person, please report the issue to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help with issues related to it, please see this page. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Björk, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Björk on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iceland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Iceland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| B |
This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| High |
This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
Björk (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) was formerly listed as a good article, but was removed from the listing because the article fails to cite its references. --Allen3 talk 12:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Desperately in need of copy-editing
This article is desperately in need of a good copy edit, so I will come back and get started on it in the next few days. Some of it reads as though written by someone who was not an English-speaker, so a good deal of the work will just consist of untangling pretzel sentences and making it a more elegant read. I don't intend to deal with content, just the prose. I'm letting people know so the rewrite doesn't come as a shock. Any suggestions are welcome, either before or after.--TEHodson 07:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
[edit] An "octogenarian" jazz group?
Under "The Sugarcubes", is there a reason why Trio Guðmundar Ingólfssonar is described as "an octogenarian jazz group"? There's no way that group has been around for eighty years. dz7 (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
[edit] GAN: Insufficient citations
This article was removed from Good Article status because it failed to adequately cite its sources. That problem has not been resolved. The section on the Sugarcubes, for instance, cites no sources at all. I'd suggest the nominator quickly review the article and redress the issue. Otherwise the nomination risks being quick-failed. Lemurbaby (talk) 01:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
[edit] GA Review
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Björk/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tea with toast (talk · contribs) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- A. Prose quality:
- There are too many short paragraphs consisting of only a sentence or two. Many sections lack direction and focus.
- B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- There are many deadlinks that may have fallen prey to WP:linkrot
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- There are many, many sentences that need citations. Some are marked, but I feel like I'm spending too much time locating them when some of the content may not even be worth keeping.
- C. No original research:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- It might be too broad
- B. Focused:
- There are too many unnecessary details here, which really bog the article down and somewhat obscure her more notable accomplishments
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- I think there may be too many details coming from a fan's viewpoint.
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Sorry, but this article still needs a lot of work to get to GA. --Tea with toast (話) 19:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Gah - oh well. Although I believe you forgot to fail the article. What a pro. (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
