Talk:La Bella Mafia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article La Bella Mafia has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
January 25, 2013 Good article nominee Listed

Dead external links to Allmusic website – January 2011[edit]

Since Allmusic have changed the syntax of their URLs, 2 link(s) used in the article do not work anymore and can't be migrated automatically. Please use the search option on http://www.allmusic.com to find the new location of the linked Allmusic article(s) and fix the link(s) accordingly, prefereably by using the {{Allmusic}} template. If a new location cannot be found, the link(s) should be removed. This applies to the following external links:

--CactusBot (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:La Bella Mafia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Figureskatingfan (talk · contribs) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC) Hi, I'll be reviewing this article. Seems solid at first glance. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

Short article, but that isn't going to get in the way of passing to GA. Minor issues, as stated below.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    I recommend that you expand the lead a little. Remember, it's a summary of the article. There's nothing in the lead about how this album was a comeback for Kim, and nothing about its reception. Other than that, nice job with the prose. It's my practice to copy-edit articles I review for GAC, but there's no need with this one.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    There are a few issues with the sourcing, but nothing major. See below for examples.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    I'm going to AGF and trust that this article is comprehensive, and that you've exhausted all possible sources about the topic.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    I wonder if you could add one more image, possibly of Dr. Dre or of Kim in more clothing than she wears on the cover. ;)
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    On hold for seven days until issues are resolved.

Sources

  • Billboard charts: I wonder if you could find other sources that cite the same information. I say that because I'm not sure if these are the best sources. I'm not familiar with articles about albums, so I don't know if using the charts is customary for these kinds of articles. If it is, please ignore me and move on. ;)
  • Billboard's archives seem like the most reliable sources. ;)
  • Google books: You should cite sources from Google just as you would other sources, but include the URL provided. For example, ref 18: Use the cite journal template like this [1]
  •  Done
  • I'm AGF again regarding some of the industry sources (MTV, Metacritic, Rapreviews.com, All Hiphop, ect.) and trust that you had to use them in order to be comprehensive, or like with Billboard, it's convention to use them for this kind of article. I'm a strong believer that there are times when the comprehensive guidelines trump the reliable sources policy, so with a small amount of reassurance, I can overlook it.
  • There weren't a lot of sources regarding this album, which is why I had to scour the web for these articles, in order to be more comprehensive.
  • Ref 6 dead; please go through all your refs and make sure they work.
  •  Done

Good luck. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for reviewing, I'll starting fixing up the article.--WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. Please let me know when you're finished. I noticed that you haven't fixed the google books ref, but that you added some of the content I had asked you to add. No image of Kim? It seems we're on the same page about your source choices and choosing comprehensiveness over reliability. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
It's been over a week, but I'll AGF and trust that the small changes I've requested will be addressed, since I'm confident that the nominator is committed to this article. I'll go pass now. Congratulations. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for passing. Sorry it took so long to fix the minor issues. Regards :) --WWETrishMickiefan (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)