Talk:1,000 Years/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Give me a moment and I will post my thoughts on this review.
I'm afraid I have to fail the article immediately. It seems the nomination is too soon. A cursory glance reveals the article has many issues and is in violation of at least half the GA criteria.
- The lead paragraph is woefully short and does not adquately summarize even what little detail the article has.
- Too many direct quotes; most of this should be paraphrased.
- "Influences" section is little more than a list, and "Composition" section is mostly comprised of material that should be included in the "Reception" section.
- "Reception", speaking of which, has many review scores but relatively few reviews are even mentioned in the article. If it cannot be expanded, anything in the "Accolades" subsection should be merged upward into the rest of the section.
- Critical approval should be collated entirely into that section; for example, I don't understand the need to point this out in the lead paragraph: "Stephen Thompson of NPR was one of many critics who wrote favorably of the album." It's the only review cited by name here and it does not appear elsewhere in the article. Symptomatic of the article's organizational issues.
- Coverage is not sufficiently broad. The article barely scratches the surface of the subject. It is currently C-class, but in my mind it barely even meets those criteria.
- Citations are not formatted properly. Nearly all of them are little more than hyperlinks with names. Please fill out the citation templates properly to avoid the dangers associated with sources getting link rot.
Article is unfinished and further review is not necessary. Please expand the article, write proper citations and organize the article better, and resubmit for nomination at a later time.