Talk:Brown Album/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 06:55, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try something crazy (for me) - I will review this article to see whether it merits being promoted to Good Article status.

How well is it written? Lead paragraph leaves a lot to be desired. Much of the information portion quotes Les Claypool directly when the info in question could and probably should be paraphrased. Reception rather well-written, and in-depth, but probably could be a tad longer.

Is it verifiable? Article relies almost entirely on a single source until the Reception part, where the other six sources are used (there are seven in total). Sources seem strong and without issues.

How broad is its coverage? This article is severely lacking in detail. One wonders if there is anything left to cover; the article is quite bare. It could be much longer.

Is it neutral? Yes. There appear to be no issues regarding POV.

Is it stable? It appears to be. I saw nothing even vaguely resembling an edit war occurring. If only every Wikipedia article could be this peaceful.

Is it illustrated with something safe to use? Only with the album cover; fair-use rational seems sufficient.

Main concern with this article is that it is short. I don't believe GAs need to be long, but length is usually an indicator of how deeply the material has been covered. This article barely scratches the surface as it is. I encourage the nominator to expand the article and resubmit it at a future date. My final verdict is nomination failed.