Talk:Loud (Rihanna album)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Wikipedian Penguin (talk · contribs) 21:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
The article is not well-written and the prose is messy. Paragraphs look choppy and uneven and make the article look sloppy. I am further noticing the abundance of quotations replacing original prose. I suggest you revise the quality of the prose and deal with this huge WP:QUOTEFARM. And then there is WP:OVERLINK and use of ellipses in the beginning of quotations.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
The lead is too long, per WP:LEAD restrictions and there are specific quotations, which is frowned upon in a section of the article which is only supposed to give a brief and engaging overview of the article. Not impressed, guys.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Citation formatting is horribly messy, I'm sorry. It's inconsistent and I was hoping after the previous review it would be somewhat better. For example, you are flipping between "All Music Group", "allaccess.com" and "Allaccess". I am under the assumption that "All Access Music Group" does not publish "allaccess.com". Be consistent and correct.
Your use of italicization is extremely inconsistent. I am seeing web publications like iTunes and MTV being italicized and others like AV Club not.
HMV Online Japan or HMV.co.jp?
Be specific (i.e. MTV News vs. MTV).
I would like consistency with how publishers for websites are notated (i.e. parenthesized or not).
Are you going to provide publishers or not? Be consistent. I see "AOL Radio" and I see "AOL Radio. AOL Inc".
The list goes on...

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
SOHH.com, FMQB and Hollywood Dame are not reliable sources?

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
I would rather not comment on this after the WYT incident.

B. Focused:
An enormous singles section that has to go into too much detail on commercial reception. Please trim it down.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Good enough for GA.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
We use sound samples to illustrate musical elements, not lyrics.

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Commercial performance pic needs more relevant caption, or else remove it.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Sorry, guys, this is all in good faith. My comments may sound harsh and rude, but they are the truth and are meant for the better. And please don't rush with GA3. If this article is back in the queue before the holidays, I'll be surprised.

Comments can go below. If you want specific advice on things such as dealing with all the quotes and the reference formatting, ping me. But I am sure, a lot you can do yourself. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 21:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FMQB is reliable :) Novice7 (talk) 04:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOHH.com is also reliable. :() Jivesh1205 (Talk) 05:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, FMGB is reliable. However, I would doubt SOHH.com is reliable. I don't see any proof of it. Nevertheless, the article would have failed anyway. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 18:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RSN information. —WP:PENGUIN · ^{[ TALK ]} 11:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 12:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]