Talk:Queensrÿche (album)

"Reception" section.

The "Reception" section in this article needs some major cleanup in terms of length and identifying which reviews are appropriate. First off, I think the sheer length of the section speaks for itself. It has enough material to be its own article. Another problem is that it basically amounts to a list of quotes. Also, sentences like:

"The review at Legendary Rock Interviews by John Parks has an enthusiastic personal touch about it"
"Avinash Mittur at Metal Assault has written the most critical review so far"
"Matthew Brady of Metalmouth sees the good and bad"

...aren't especially encyclopedic. The reason I haven't changed them myself is because I'm honestly not sure what would be the best way to describe those reviews, nor am I sure that they all warrant large blocks of text in the first place. And while whether or not these reviews come from reliable, notable sources seems to be worth discussing, I'd like to point out that linking to something like this as a professional review just looks ridiculous and self-serving, to be completely honest. It's generally a good rule of thumb to make the article read like it wasn't written by fans of the subject, even if that's the case. Friginator (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I wrote the majority of the section, and was a bit surprised myself at the length. Of course everyone is kindly invited to help flesh it out, and I've made a start with it already, also addressing the above comments. Due to the plethora of blogs and sites out there, I always find it difficult to determine which ones are suitable to quote as review. If you are able to help determine that, please do so. Thanks! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

credits....

i still think credits should be in alphabetical like every other album on the wiki --TauSigmaNova~

I disagree; if the artists themselves chose to put their credits in a different ordering, I prefer to use that as they probably have a good reason for it. Wikipedia's album article style guide also doesn't prescribe that writing credits should be in alphabetical order. In fact, the example they use for Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide#Track listing examples (taken from Before These Crowded Streets) shows that it doesn't have to be in alphabetical order. Also, "La Torre" is not filed under 'L' but under 'T', so in fact five out of the eleven tracks listed do use alphabetical ordering in their current ordering.--Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA

The article is quite good, but we can`t rate it beyond B, you should go to the GA project so it can be evaluated properly. Zidane tribal (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Queensrÿche (album)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Start class:

Y A reasonably complete infobox
Y A lead section giving an overview of the album
Y A track listing
Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient)
Y Categorisation at least by artist and year

C class:

Y All the start class criteria
Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art
Y At least one other section of prose (in addition to the lead section)
Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs
Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians.
N Independent in-line references supporting major/controversial claims

B class:

N All the C class criteria
Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details
N A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians
N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources.
Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 15:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 03:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)