Jump to content

Talk:1980 (album)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.


GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 16:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
    B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
    Fails MOS:LINKQUOTE. Not a reasonable reason given to hyperlink a monarch when the text is ambiguous and lacks context to justify such assertion.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section):
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations):
    C. No original research:
    Two instances of original research, one was fixed reluctantly and the other still in the article. Despite the fact that "Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever" mentions a 1980 song, Christgau never discussed any particular title. If the article 1980 mentioned that "Shot 'Um Down" is an anti-nuclear and the original source was Christgau alone, WP:SYNTH applied. Thankfully for the readers, other sources exist.
    D. No copyright violations:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    See the big white box on the right
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
  6. Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
    A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:


Resolved comments from Tbhotch
;Image
  • "Author or copyright owner: Gil Scott-Heron" -> Is he the copyright owner?
  • "Not replaceable with free media because (WP:NFCC#1) [because] n.a." -> is not a valid rationale
  • "Respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) [because] n.a." -> is not a valid rationale
Infobox
  • "1980 was Scott-Heron and Jackson's last album together." -> The infobox says Real Eyes is their next album together. If you meant to say Scott-Heron discography, then separate it.
Recording
Reception
References
Background
  • It is missing. Considering this is their 6th album together, there is information about it.
  • You are showing me a guide that concedes it is "a list of possible sections," rather than necessary sections. The music and lyrics sections have some background on their previous work, ideas, etc. The album exists because it was recorded and released. If there is any more information relevant as "background" to this album, it does not exist in the literature. Scott-Heron's career has not been a deeply-covered topic; even AllMusic's skimpy bio has major errors like naming 1978 as the year Jackson left their recording partnership. Dan56 (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The awful stub that existed before your first edit here had a source not present anymore. That means there are more than 16 sources out there. I cited the wording "as a reader I am not reading why the album exists". Therefore, the article fails Point 3a. "Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic". © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is more to this album's coming to existence than what is already explained (recording, inspiration behind themes, the label releasing it), then it's out of the scope for this article and its sources. Your feeling--that what is already explained does not sufficiently explain "why the album exists"--is a personal criteria that's irrelevant to good-article reviewing. And if you cannot help from imposing your personal criteria in this review, ask for a second opinion, or recuse yourself, and I will re-open for someone who is better equipped to handle reviewing this article. Dan56 (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Themes
  • ""Shut 'Um Down" features an anti-nuclear message" -> From source: " Having already written more good antinuke songs than the rest of MUSE put together, they add a third on their best album ever."
  • "subjects include ... the shah (dead)," -> Is Christgau talking about Mohammad Reza Pahlavi?
    • The reference could be to Pahlavi but also to the title of "shah", which would have been "dead" (abolished) by the time Christgau's review was published (March 1980); Pahlavi was literally dead a few months later (July). According to the Wikipedia article on Pahlavi: Due to his status as the last Shah of Iran, he is often known as simply "The Shah". Which appears to be reflected in the sources there. Dan56 (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • From MOS:LINKQUOTE: "Be conservative when linking within quotations: link only to targets that correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author." By "Aliens" Christgau is not talking about spatial creatures, or is he? Also, "I didn't do it" is not a justification, because you decided to link it without verifying where it went or what it meant. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 13:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with where it went. I agree that Christgau is referring to "the shah". I agree that "the shah" refers to Pahlavi. If you have a specific question or demand, as a reviewer, I'm all ears. Dan56 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article on hold. © Tbhotch (en-2.5). 21:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.