Talk:Goldfrapp/GA1

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 Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles' Project quality task force ("GA Sweeps"), all old good articles are being re-reviewed to ensure that they meet current good article criteria (as detailed at WP:WIAGA.) I have determined that this article needs quite a bit of work to meet current criteria, outlined below:

• There are a few (obvious) unsourced statements throughout the article. Remember any statement that could be contested should be sourced; since we're dealing with living people, there's an added ante to be careful and cite rather than not. Another issue is sources not really adequately providing support for the claims they ostensibly support. Some examples:
  • Example of missourcing: "The album was well received by music critics, described as "simultaneously smarmy and seductive, yet elegant and graceful"." is sourced to [1], but that is but one critics review and so cannot be used to support the assertion that it was well-received by critics (also, the quotes should be attributed). Same issue with "The album received positive reviews from critics, who found it to be..." section, and elsewhere.
  • Example of unsourced: "The album comprises pop and electronic-dance music prominently featured on Black Cherry, but focuses more on subtle hooks instead of the large choruses that made up its predecessor. The band never intended to create dance music, however, previous releases were popular across nightclubs in North America and as a result, they decided to write a more dance-oriented album." (The nearest source only provides verification for chart positions.)
• Another example of missourcing is the halfway-source: things are sorta', kinda' attributed, but often with a dose of original research on the part of the editor who put it in--big no-no. Example: "Although Goldfrapp's musical style has changed over time, they are considered to be an electronic music band. Goldfrapp has explored a range of musical styles in their songs, although many songs are characterized by Alison Goldfrapp's distinctive breathy, soft vocals and Will Gregory's multi-layered synthesizer and string arrangements." is sourced to [2], but there's nothing in the source that talks about "breathy" vocals.
• Images/Media: I think File:GoldfrappOohLaLa.ogg may have enough commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC, but will need its fair use rationale specifically tailored to it, and not just the generic boilerplate. I don't think there's enough discussion of File:GoldfrappSatinChic.ogg that it's needed, at least not in the main band article.

I am putting the article on hold for a week awaiting improvements. Please keep me posted on this page. Thanks, Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

As no progress has been made on the above, I am delisting. The article can be renominated at WP:GAN at any time. Direct any comments to my talk page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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.