Talk:Fall Out Boy/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Fall Out Boy GA Reassessment[edit]

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

Symbol unsupport vote.svg To uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. While all the hard work that has gone into this article is appreciated, unfortunately, as of December 1, 2009, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN. If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GAR.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):

#:: History ...best friends, Joseph Mark Trohman and Peter Lewis Kingston Wentz III wanted to play songs by bands they listened to growing up such as Green Day and Descendents. Clumsy and ungrammatical.

  1. I rewrote this to be closer to what it was when it achieved GA.
    Trohman met high school student Patrick Martin Stump in a Borders book store. Is Borders significant, why is it wikilinked?
    I removed the wikilink, but I left Borders. I think it helps illustrate the meeting better for the reader.
    The band received an advance from Island Records to record its proper debut, but the advance came with a right of first refusal for Island on Fall Out Boy's next album. But?
    Corrected this.
    it would take place with +44, Cobra Starship, The Academy Is... and Paul Wall as supporting acts. The show at Phoenix would be taped and become Fall Out Boy's first live album. Replace would with was. simple past rather than conditional.
    Corrected.
    and the song is currently on its chart run. Still? Replace with less specific timeline wording.
    Corrected. Also fixed similar issues with outdated wording (or the potential to become outdated) in other areas of the article.
    In general, the group has direct ties to melodic pop music,... What does in general mean?
    No idea, and none of it was in the provided source. I cut the whole sentence.
    Charity work Does this need a separate section?
    Removed.
    Lead: should fully summarize the article, please familiarise yourself with WP:LEAD.
    I restored this to be closer to what it was when it achieved GA. I'll expand with the more recent history soon.
    Thorough copy-editing throughout is needed.  Done
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

#:: Ref #12 is a dead link; ref #32 [1] is not RS; ref #33 needs properly formatting as news item from the BBC; ref #30 is a scan of a Rolling stone article, not RS, cite the print article if you like, but scans prove nothing; ref #32 redirects to band website; ref #35 - youtube is not RS; ref #27 is a social networking site, not RS; REF #34 is a blog, not RS; ref #26 is a blog; ref #25 is a dead link; ref #21 is a blog; ref #19 is a car sales site, not RS. Overall referencing is poor and poorly formatted, bare html should be properly formatted using citation templates.

  1. The numbers are off now because of changes, but tinymediaempire.com (what was #32) is an RS. That's the website and blog post of the artist that did the cover art for the album, which is what is being referenced. So that's a primary source. Also, the personal blog of Pete Wentz would also be an appropriate primary source, but the site seems to have been taken down, so I've removed that. I think everything else has either been updated with archive info or removed, and all formatted. Going through now to replace dead links with new ones.
    Ref #11 [V] Vivid Seats is a full service ticket marketplace - not WP:RS; ref #23 looks as if it may be a WP:SPS, makes no mention of song appearing on a n album, rather on a DVD; ref #28 [2] doesn't support the statement, just a few lines of text; ref #31 suggests that it has been announced as "Blink and Weezer will be touring together this summer, and they're taking Fall Out Boy with them. ". Yet the article says thathey toured - past tense - tours are announced all the time, not all of them happen; ref #32 is a blog, which may or may not have been posted by the cover artist - not RS, please read the policy; ref #2 "Musicmight is a Rock database established online by Garry Sharpe-Young in 2001. Want to add information to this database? Just register - it's simple!" - not a RS; ref #5 Tv.com "Registration allows you to write reviews, participate in our lively discussions, and contribute to show, episode and person guides" not a RS; ref #34 is not a RS
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    Concerns listed above, please focus on providing reliable and verifiable sources. On hold for seven days. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    Responses above from Lara ☁. 17:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, the prose and style side is greatly improved, thank you. Just the referencing to fix. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
    They're all fixed. Lara ☁ 05:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    I beg to differ, we have quite a few new unreliable sources. Please read up on verifiability and RS, consider statements such as "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and "How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them." and how they apply to many of the sources in this article. Until this article is reliably sourced it is not worthy of GA status, so I am delisting it. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Dubious section moved to Talk:Fall Out Boy#Dubious. Lara ☁ 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)