Talk:Enema of the State/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Guerillero (talk · contribs) 19:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	A read through shows that there are no obvious spelling and grammar errors.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead: I don't see anything in the lead that isn't in the article itself. The lead in 3 paragraphs; the largest a lead can be but I think it needs to be of this length. Layout: Everything in the see also section is mentioned in the text of the article. I don't see a reason to keep it. Words to watch: watch your use of infamous. fiction: N/A List incorporation: Looks good.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	About.com, Discogs, and AcclaimedMusic.net aren't reliable sources. The AbsolutePunk link is broken and leads to a thread and not news article. The punk news article needs a title. (Ref 67). Can you find a RS for Indonesia and Philippines charts.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	follows convention
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	~~Why is the Reeding festival important? Was the live album recorded there?~~
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	~~Do any of the negative reviews have star numbers for the table?~~
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	How do the readers gain value from having two nearly carbon copies of the same image File:Enemaoriginal.jpg and File:Blink-182 - Enema of the State cover.jpg. How do you justify using the "same" fair use image twice in the same article?
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	~~Along with my comments in 3b, I am not convinced that an empty stage is relevant.~~
	7. Overall assessment.

I will place this on hold to be worked on --Guerillero | My Talk 04:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hey there! You recently reviewed my good article nomination for Enema of the State. You placed the article on hold for some further revision, which has been implemented in areas. I will however address several points in your review, such as the inclusion of images and sources deemed unreliable:

2b: Acclaimed Music is employed as a reliable source on current good articles (Me Against the World) and featured articles (Dookie). About.com is used as a source in the featured article Punk rock, as is Discogs. Discogs is also in use in the good articles on previous Blink-182 albums Cheshire Cat and Dude Ranch. I have replaced the AbsolutePunk link with a book reference, as the original interview (no longer online, apparently) is cited in the book.

I will accept your use of acclaimed music because you use it as a starting point. Discogs is user generates content and therefore does not pass WP:RS. For about.com you need to show that the writer has some expertise on the subject. The use in other pieces of audited content, as they stand right now, shouldn't be an argument for the use of a source. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Discogs and About.com links have been removed. Thardin12 (talk) 03:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Indonesia and Philippines chart references do not come from those chart’s respective sites, as those countries do not (to my knowledge) have a certification site, or at least one that would include an album released in 1999. For those certifications, an additional reference (found in the 'Sales/shipments' section of the box) is included, citing the band’s biography, in which they give the stats on the album’s sales worldwide (of course, the book was released in 2001… many of these are long outdated, but I feel it necessary to include them regardless). I’ve also removed Germany’s certification, as they did not achieve one there.

I don't fully know how I feel about this but I see that you are trying to use the best sources out there --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3b: The Reading photo was included because I found the image long ago and, as Reading is a famous festival and this was the band’s first performance at it (and the photo in question is FROM that particular year), I felt it notable to include. Reading wasn’t a particularly important moment in determining the band’s stature in the pop world and industry, of course, and the image is only there to spruce up the article a tad… when I find a better image representing the touring cycle, such as a photo from that tour, the Reading image will be replaced. For now, I’ve left it there, as numerous good articles (Animals, Emotions) and even featured articles (Mother's Milk) include images from tours not necessarily discussed in detail in the text.

You make your point. I remove this objection --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

4: Only one review discussed in the text (NME) is fairly negative, and that respective review doesn’t give a score (I suppose one could include (negative) in the review box, but I’ve always disliked review boxes anyway [I feel they often give undue weight to the critical reception of an album] and including a (negative) looks out of place beside stars). I’ve left it as it stands, and have removed two reviews that seem more like blog posts than reliable sources (Punknews and Sputnikmusic).

Sounds good and I agree with you that the review boxes are horrible. --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6a: The image in question of the album cover does feature a slight difference in the capitalization of the band’s name; I nominated the article long ago and this image has since been added. I agree with your rationale; it has been removed.

Sounds good --Guerillero | My Talk 20:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to more changes if need be. Thank you for the review! Thardin12 (talk) 04:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes the GA criteria --Guerillero | My Talk 03:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]