Talk:The Sword/GA1

GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

• Just a couple things that rub me the wrong way: two consecutive paragraphs in the History section begin with the "In [month] [year]," construction, and two consecutive sentences in the Style... section begin with "While...".
  • Tweaked your updated version – change "often" to "occasionally" or whatever if not accurate. —Zeagler (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

• How are Encyclopaedia Metallum and last.fm reliable sources?
• Reference #5 is a dead link.
• There are inconsistencies in the accessdate formatting; I'd recommend using 'Month Day, Year' instead of ISO.

2. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

• For a short article like this, I wouldn't be a good reviewer if I didn't verify that you've mined every available tidbit of information that's notable. Just tell me a little about how and where you searched. :)
  • How do you mean? Andre666 (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Did you find your information through Google searches? Sites that you already knew? The Internet Archive for links that were dead? Print sources from your local library's (online) collection? —Zeagler (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Mainly sites that I knew, e.g. the official site; allmusic, etc.; everything is listed in the references section.
      • In looking through those sites, it seems you've condensed the information more than necessary. You could probably double the length of the article just from the Cronise interview. Also, I found numerous articles on the band through a Factiva search. If you don't have access, send me an email and I'll hook you up with the articles. —Zeagler (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

4. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• A little more depth is required for a good article (when the info is out there), but it'll take some time to work up to that, so I'm going to fail the article for now. When you renominate, send me a message and I'll expedite the process. —Zeagler (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)