Talk:Project 86/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I've never heard of this band, but not knowing anything about a subject has never stopped me from a good GA review in the past. I'm looking forward to learning more. --Christine (talk) 18:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:
Adequate prose, good enough for a GA. If you want to go further, though, I suggest that you have a fresh pair of eyes give it a copyedit.

B. MoS compliance:
For the most part, this article is compliant. Please go through and check the punctuation. The only glaring problem is that quotation style isn't consistent. Wikipedia uses logical quotation, and it needs to be done in this article every time a quotation is used.

I found a few more instances of it. Please go through the article one more time, even if you use the "find" feature in your web browser. I was just going to do it myself, but I'll let you do it, so that you can decide which quotes are logical and which are not.--Christine (talk) 13:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:
Very well researched article.

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
The current format of the sources is unwieldy and difficult to navigate. See section below.

C. No original research:
It feels really funny to say this, but I wonder if this article isn't over-sourced. I explain what I mean below.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
For the length of the article (53 kb), the lead is too short.

According to this, the lead needs to be one paragraph longer. --Christine (talk) 13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
There may be too much information.
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Appears to be neutral.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Very stable
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. A little light on the images. I admit that image review is not my strong point, but for the length of this article, I wonder if there should be more. How about album cover images? The image in the infobox is kind of worthless; it fails to show the band members clearly. I wonder if the promotional photo of the band is actually free use. We need to get another opinion about this, although I'd probably let it slide for the sake of this review:

I still have issue with the images, especially the one in the infobox. I'll assume good faith, though, and let it slide. You can bet this issue will become more important if you bring this article to FAC. --Christine (talk) 13:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Slight re-wording could improve the captions a bit. For example, Bassist Stephen Dail plays in the distance. in the Torres caption is a bit stilted. Perhaps a better version would be, Bassist Stephen Dail is seen in the background or something like that.
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

General comments[edit]

I've already insinuated this above, but I wonder about the length of this article. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I wonder if a relatively unknown band like this warrants a 53-kb long article. They're interesting, but please remember that a too-long article is harder to read.

Related to this article's length is its over-sourcing. As I state above, the "Notes" and "References" sections are set-up differently than what I've seen. The standard citation format and templates are here: WP:CT. (I go into more detail below.) For example, I'm not sure where the band stayed while recording their first album is important. I'd bet that you could cut a substantial part of the article by going through it and removing content that can't be backed up with the most reliable of sources. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that decision myself, so I'll leave that editorial decision up to you. There are times when every single sentence in a paragraph has a source, no matter how obscure.

Let me explain why I have an issue with the sources formatting. When I was checking the sources, I had to navigate to the appropriate item in the "Notes" section; then I had to scroll down to the "References" section, find it in the list, and click. That's not very user-friendly. One source, "Dillon" wasn't in the "References" section. I strongly suggest changing the format. If you want to keep it, I recommend linking the note to the entry in "References", like what's done in The Beatles. That's a good model for articles about bands, anyway.

Regarding my feedback about the "importance" of this band: There seems to be a huge amount of information out there about Project 86, which could negate my opinion. I realize that I'm an old fuddy-duddy, and my musical tastes don't go about in these circles, so if you disagree and can cite reasons why, please feel free to disregard it. Good attempt, and I'm sure with some edits and cuts, this article will go easily to GA. --Christine (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to request that the review remain open for an extended amount of time. I am in the middle of finals week at school and need to devote time to study. I did not believe the review would fall on this week, but it did. I will address the issues sometime next week. Thank you for your patience. -- Noj r (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a horrible excuse! ;) No, please, take your time. I'm an old lady, but I do remember what it was like. My college roommate and I used to celebrate the end of finals with pizza and our bi-yearly viewing of Princess Bride. Ah, the good old days! --Christine (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status on this? Looks like some progress has been made in making the changes, just making sure you two didn't forget about this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am chagrined, sir! Yah, I forgot about this, with all the other irons I got goin' and the holidays and all kinds of lame excuses. I promised that with the changes that Noj r made, most important being the edits to the references I requested, I'd pass this article to GA. Which I will, right now. I do have one question, just for curiosity sake: What happened to the offer regarding images? At any rate, I apologize and thank you for lighting the fire under my substantial arse. ;) --Christine (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]