Talk:Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album)
Latest comment: 7 years ago by SteveStrummer in topic GA Review
 | Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album) has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. Review: January 3, 2017. (Reviewed version). |
 | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 19 March 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA Review edit
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I am going to review this article for possible Good Article status. Reviewer: Shearonink (talk · contribs) 01:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Passes the threshold "immediate failure" criteria: No cleanup banners, no obvious copyright infringements, etc. Shearonink (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Really well-done. Hits all the important highlights without devolving into trivia central or general fancruft. I'll be honest, this is probably the first WP article about an album I've ever read, and I think it's terrific.
- 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?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: }
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Ref #35 is dead.- I've added a working archive url for this. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Ref #48 has an odd redirect...are you sure it is ending up where it needs to be to source that statement? Same with Ref #21.- Both of these pointed to 'Charts' tabs on AllMusic which no longer exist. In fact one of the entries was wrong – perhaps that's why the tabs have been taken down! Accordingly I've removed Ref #48, and added a new source for Ref #21. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- All of the above issues have been resolved.
- Both of these pointed to 'Charts' tabs on AllMusic which no longer exist. In fact one of the entries was wrong – perhaps that's why the tabs have been taken down! Accordingly I've removed Ref #48, and added a new source for Ref #21. SteveStrummer (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- C. It contains no original research:
Pending the correcting of some referencing issues.- Fixed.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Ran the copyvio tool - no plagiarism found.
- 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):
- Fascinating read - I feel like it was a thriller....will the album get made? Will the band let Flo & Eddie perform? etc.
- 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 fair 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 fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- I know that there are probably improvements that could be made but I'm not seeing them at this time - maybe Wikilinking the term "Gold (record)" to [[Music recording #sales certification for anyone unfamiliar with the term... And I'll be frank with anyone who reads this afterwards, I started on this Review without much enthusiasm, just trying to so some reviews and I picked this one out. I don't know all that much about Rundgren's work as a producer or about The Psychedelic Furs, didn't know that Flo&Eddie/The Turtles sang on this album, and so on. And now I do and now I am a little fascinated with the individuals and this music. Thank you to all the notable contributors to this article, it was a pleasure. Shearonink (talk) 18:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your review! SteveStrummer (talk) 19:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Pass or Fail:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.