Talk:In Death Reborn/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors):
There are incorrect uses of semicolons instead of commas or colons, random captalization of words, and it relies in multiple quotations.

B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists):
I didn't go futher than the lead, but as explained below, I recommend a GOCE.
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):
Some sources are unreliable and others are self-published.

C. No original research:

D. No copyright violations:
Multiple quotations
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Example: "HipHopDX gave the album a fairly average rating of 3.5/5." and "Exclaim! gave the album a fairly positive 7/10". Both grades are the same, somehow one is positive and the other is average. Another example: "RapReviews gave the album a mediocre score of 5.5/10". This is why we don't "grade" the grades. Readers alone can determine how to take a grade.
Is it stable?
edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism):
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:
Rear cover is unneeded
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

General

two dead links; other links at risk
I was concerned about this, until I was "source: Wikipedia". Therefore, this is not a reliable source
Talking about sources, the article relies in too many WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, including YouTube, Facebook Twitter and Instagram. I can see Wordpress and Discogs as sources, which are not reliable.

Infobox

2012-2014 -> 2012–2014
Why Babygrande and Demigodz Records are written with a smaller text than Enemy?
Demigodz Records -> Demigodz
File:InDeathRebornRear.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8

Lead

"independent record label; Enemy Soil" -> incorrect use of WP:SEMICOLON
"would be releasing in 2014, Heavy Lies the Crown being released" -> The semicolon would be used here instead.
"The only member that didn't make" -> did not make
"It was later confirmed that ... On February 11, 2014, it was confirmed that" -> reword one of them
"production team consisted of producers" -> redundant
"of producers include" -> including
"of producers includ[ing] ... and including Army of the Pharaohs'... amongst others, including new faces" -> redundant
"faces that hadn't been" -> had not
You don't need to link the members more than once in the lead
on the song 7th Ghost -> on the song "7th Ghost". Titles of songs go on quotations not italics.
"7th Ghost" but spoke -> "7th Ghost", but spoke
"spoke out saying, how he was" -> "spoke out saying how he was"
"he had a lot of personal stuff going on" -> that is jargon
"stated that there will be more of him on the LP that is due to drop in November." -> which November?
"in favour" -> this is an American subject
"The group released their second album of the year Heavy Lies the Crown on 21 October 2014. Six months after In Death Reborn." -> you already mentioned this
"US Billboard 200" -> Billboard
"US Billboard 200[13] and also topping the UK R&B albums at 33 and US Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums at 16". -> US, UK, US. Order required
Online Rap album reviewer; -> no reason to use semicolon
"Online rap album reviewer; RapReviews gave" -> "Online Rap album reviewer, RapReviews, gave"
"gave the album a mediocre score of 5.5/10" -> 5.5 is hardly "mediocre"
"fairly positive" -> POV
"Canadian Music magazine Exclaim!" -> Canadian music magazine Exclaim!
Unless it is a BLP issue, you don't need to use sources in the lead.
Main issues with the lead alone. The first paragraph is OK, it gives the reader relevant information (although some of it is irrelevant for the lead). The second paragraph is a big "Background". Most of it is not relevant here and can easily be simplified. Third paragraph is unneutral. And the lead in general fails WP:LEAD, as it does not summarizes the content.

Considering the issues I mentioned above are merely the lead, I have to quick-fail the nomination. I suggest you, first, to contact a WP:GOCE member that can help you to re-structure the article. Secondly, you can consult other WP:GA/Music articles to check how to shape the points of view and quotations. After that, you can request a WP:Good article reassessment or re-nominate it if required or if you believe this closure is an error. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 01:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]