Talk:Iron Maiden

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Toolbox
dashboard disambig links external links See WP:DEADREF for dead URLs

This review is transcluded from Talk:Iron Maiden/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:22, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found.

Linkrot: one found and fixed.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:29, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

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):

   The band are currently undergoing a resurgence in popularity, with their latest studio offering, The Final Frontier, peaking at No. 1 in 28 different countries[1] and receiving widespread critical acclaim. This needs a date, "currently" ia word to avoid, suggest as of [whatever year].

   A bad performance at the Bridgehouse Where is the Bridgehouse?

   was considered to join the group at one time suggest something like "was considered as a potential group member"

   Bandwagon Heavy Metal Soundhouse Where was this?

   What happened to the fourth song from the demo?

   particularly through alleged drug usage, which Di'Anno himself admits. If he admits it, why is it alleged?

   In a press release regarding From Fear to Eternity, band manager Rod Smallwood revealed that the band will release a new concert video to DVD in 2011, needs an update as it is now almost 2012

   Overall good prose, just few tweaks needed. I made a number of minor copy-edits.[2]

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Well cited, I assume good faith for off-line sources, spotchecks confirm the cited statements, consistency in retrieval dates would be good, dd-mm-yyyy is best, I think. Sources appear to be RS, no OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Thorough coverage

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit warring

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):

   File:Wordmarks of IM.jpg has the wrong licence, should have the logo license or {{PD-textlogo}} Otherwise images check out fine.

   Sound samples check OK, with suitable captions, duration and rationales.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   OK, nearly there, just a few issues to address. On hold until 2 January. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for the fixes, happy to list, Jezhotwells (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I have edited the article according to each of the above suggestions. Although I trust that these issues are now rectified, I am willing to make further alterations if necessary.--Nerdtrap (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.