Talk:Meshuggah/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- In the Formation and early years (1987-1989) section, this sentence, the beginning of it ---> "where the band called Metallien formed in 1985...", sounds a bit odd and may have to be re-written.
This sentence, in the Nuclear Blast and Contradictions Collapse (1990-1994) section, "New drummer Tomas Haake replaced Niclas Lundgren", would be best if it were a little re-written.
Done Same section, "Nuclear Blast did not promote the album, which consequently sold badly", maybe if the sentence read ---> "Nuclear Blast did not promote the album, due to lack of record sales". In the Destroy Erase Improve (1995–1997) section, it wouldn't hurt to mention Machine Head's bassist to the sentence of him offering help to the band. Done Same section, "Jens Kidman said about album's cover", I know that the quote is something that he's explaining about the album cover, but the sentence is oddly written. In the Chaosphere and Nothing (1998-2002) section, what exactly is this sentence trying to explain ---> "1999 continued with a United States tour with thrash metal pioneers Slayer"? Done In the Catch Thirtythree and obZen (2003–present) section, this sentence ---> "Meshuggah were nominated for a Swedish Grammy for that album", would be best written to "Catch Thirythree earned the band a Swedish Grammy nomination", somewhere in there. Done
- In the Formation and early years (1987-1989) section, this sentence, the beginning of it ---> "where the band called Metallien formed in 1985...", sounds a bit odd and may have to be re-written.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- I notice that the article has sentences that read "In 2003" or "In March 2002", it would be best if a comma were added after that.
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
Does Reference 1 cover all this ---> "with a lineup including vocalist Jens Kidman, guitarist Johan Sjögren, bassist Jörgen Lindmark and drummer Per Sjögren. Meshuggah recorded several demos before Jens Kidman left the band, which broke up subsequently. He then formed a new band, Calipash, with guitarist Torbjörn Granström, bassist Peter Nordin and drummer Niclas Lundgren. Granström was soon replaced by Fredrik Thordendal on guitar"? Does Reference 3 cover all this ---> "During the tour bassist Peter Nordin became ill and had problems with the balance nerve in his inner ear. He had to leave the tour and go to Sweden because he was chronically dizzy and constantly felt like he was falling. Machine Head's bassist offered to help out, but Meshuggah decided to play as a four-man band. Thordendal at times played the bass. Other times, the band performed with two guitars; Hagström played through a pitch shifter shifted one octave down"? Done
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- This sentence, in the Chaosphere and Nothing section, ---> "Those showed the next level in Meshuggah's evolution", sounds like POV and may have to be re-written.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- If the above statement can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article! Also, contact me if the above statements are answered.
- Pass or Fail:
-- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some comments:
- 1.A. The rest of 1.A. must do someone else. But note please: The section "Nuclear Blast did not promote the album, which consequently sold badly" can not be re-written as "Nuclear Blast did not promote the album, due to lack of record sales" because the cause and the consequence are reversed. The bad sales were caused by the bad promotion.
- I addressed the other concerns and tried to reword the "bad sales" sentence to be more obvious. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- The sentence is fine. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I addressed the other concerns and tried to reword the "bad sales" sentence to be more obvious. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- 1.B. I am not sure where the comma should be and where not.
- I think I've fixed this. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think I've fixed this. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- 2.B. I've red the sources word by word - they do cover it all.
- Check. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- 4. I am also not sure how to rewrite this
- I removed the sentence, as it didn't seem to add much to one's overall understanding of the article and the band. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- And what is your opinion about this edit?
- To someone who understands musical terminology, the sentence is perfectly understandable, however, it may need to be rewritten for a more general audience. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it may need to be re-written. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- After taking another look at the section, it doesn't really seem to me that this sentence is necessary. If all agree, it might be a better idea to leave it out. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed. Well, after reading the article, I have gone off and passed the article. Congratulations. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- After taking another look at the section, it doesn't really seem to me that this sentence is necessary. If all agree, it might be a better idea to leave it out. --Kakofonous (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, it may need to be re-written. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- To someone who understands musical terminology, the sentence is perfectly understandable, however, it may need to be rewritten for a more general audience. --Kakofonous (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)