Talk:Anberlin/GA1
GA Reassessment
[edit]Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am starting a good article reassessment of this article because it has not kept up with GA standards since it was promoted, and has numerous tags that show this. Specifically:
- First, tags:
- Two "references needed" banners in the Side projects section.
- Eight "citation needed" tags scattered through the article.
- Seven references tagged with dead link tags; there may be more that aren't tagged.
- In addition to the tagged areas, there are numerous spots, including entire paragraphs, of unsourced material. Take, for example, the first paragraph of the Cities and Lost Songs section, which is completely unsourced, but includes sales statistics, chart positions and critical commentary.
- Ref #18 (get2sammyb.co.uk) is an untagged dead link, and what makes it reliable?
- Ref #37 (MyYearbook. MyMag.) is a redirect to the website home page.
- Ref #46 (Twitter) is an untagged dead link.
- There is quite a bit of information in the article that feels like it was added in as press releases came out about expected events, and never changed to past tense when the events actually happened. For instance, take "The band will begin recording around the start of March, and are not expected to be finished until May.", which is discussing 2012 work, discussion of the possible impact of the 2010 album and no discussion of actual impact, etc. Updates, expansion, etc. needed in many areas.
- There is very little specific discussion of critical commentary on the band/their albums. There are a few mentions of the general feel of critical commentary, but no specifics. Lots of quotes from band members and few comments from critics (either positive or negative) give the article an interview feel, rather than an encyclopedic feel.
- Any more information on the upcoming album, due to be released shortly?
These are the big problems I'm seeing on a first run-through. Please let me know if there are any questions. Dana boomer (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
- As there has been no response to this review, I am delisting the article from GA status. Dana boomer (talk) 19:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)