Talk:The Singles 1992–2003/GA1
GA Review
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- 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):
- 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:
- 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:
- Pass or Fail:
It passed. Just one question is it possible to add their chart positions. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- A couple of other things: references 17 and 18 need to be moved after the punctuation in the "Sales" section, and some references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Template:Cite web. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that this article has not been listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I did that. Tezkag72 (talk) 21:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- It should also be noted that this article has not been listed at Wikipedia:Good articles. GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- A few more:
- POV phrases like "moderately well", "commercially successful" and "one of the band's biggest hits" need to be removed/reworded.
- Track listings don't need citations, but more info about the releases that contain bonus tracks is warranted. "Import bonus tracks" implies a US-centric view, so that subheading should be replaced with the name of the country that released that version.
- Release history section doesn't add anything and Wikipedia is not a directory.
- There are inconsistencies in the way references are cited. Would be a good idea to convert all to the {{cite web}}, etc., templates. —Zeagler (talk) 12:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)