Talk:Metallica (album)/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email)
Fail - This article is being quick failed for obvious lack of preparation for GA.
- Many unreliable sources; #s 7, 8, 30, 42
- All are missing accessdates, and the ones that have them, are inconsistent
- Many are in numerical form, while some appear 03-12-02 style
- All sources are poorly and inconsistently formatted; many missing works/publishers/dates/authors etc.
- Many MoS violations and poor and awkward paragraphing
- Whats with the source for the credits? Make it encyclopedic.
- Major lack of content; this is one of their most definitive albums, yet you have three major reviews? I could get more for a Kesha album
- Very Bias article, struggling with NPOV issues; "Rolling Stone delivered a perfect 5-star review" -> we aren't fools, you don't need to tell us perfect
- The tours section seems like a comulative piece of information regarding several tours and albums throughout the years. Nothing to the point or relevant
- The lead is, forgive me, poor. Instead of failry summarizing the entire article's contents, it lists its commercial achievements and nothing more
I appreciate the effort, but this article is barely a C-class. Its in need of major clean-up and expansion. Good luck with that.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 01:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)