Talk:Meteora (album)/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Zwerg Nase (talk · contribs) 09:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Will review this. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I can't help feeling that nominating this article was an insult to Wikipedia. There are so many issues with this, I don't even know where to begin. I fixed the most obvious faults in grammar and spelling myself, but a lot is left to do:

• General: Why are there pieces of British English in an article about an American band?
• General: You often use the christian names of the band members. We are not a Linkin Park fanboard here, use their surnames, please.
• General: I added a number of templates where they were necessary.
• Background: I have absolutely no clue what this section is trying to tell me. The sentence The first was majorly produced by Don Gilmore and latter one by band member Mike Shinoda, made a shift in the production style for the record, making it majorly produced by Gilmore with the band itself. makes no sense, neither does The album still had the "cutting-edge" sound like its predecessor, included a bit of more artistic music as compared to their previous effort. What album are you talking about here?? You mentioned two before, but I get the feeling you are talking about Meteora? As it is written, the reader is left without a clue.
• Background: But later most of that was scraped is too colloquial.
• Writing and recording: The first sentence here contradicts what you wrote a section earlier. If production of Meteora started in early 2001, how can writing have started later?
• Writing and recording: Two times "marks" close to each other is repetitive.
• Writing and recording: How does a venue "encounter" pre-production?
• Writing and recording: I guess you mean Pro Tools? Make it a wikilink and remove the "s.
• Writing and recording: whereas used the traditional method in main studio, this half-sentence goes nowhere gramatically.
• Writing and recording: the main stuff is too colloquial.
• Writing and recording: basically is too colloquial.
• Writing and recording: You mention a deadline, but when was it? That also leads to the last sentence making no sense.
• Composition: You just spent a whole section talking about the composition of the album. Musical style would be a better title.
• Composition: You already mentioned co-production by Gilmore.
• Composition: The entire first paragraph lacks citations.
• Promotion: The entire section does not have a single reference!!!
• Promotion: As well as, for the cover art of the album, there was a "Art Day" when, "The Flem" and "Delta" helped the band for their art work, for the album as well as for the singles spawned by it. This sentence is a mess.
• Promotion: The third paragraph seems to contradict itself. First the blue tinted case edition was most common in India and then it has a different cover??
• Reception: Metacritic is usually explained in this section. See other Music Album GAs for reference.
• Commercial performance: I wouldn't consider Blabbermouth a reliable source.
• Track listing needs a source.
• As does the entire Meteora Live section.
• As does the entire personnel section.
• Large number of dead links.
• The article lacks images.

Long story short: I would quick-fail this if it weren't for the rules of the GA Cup. However, I am not willing to waste too much of my time with this review, which provided me with the worst article I ever saw entered as a GA nominee. If I don't see major improvements in the next 72 hours, I will fail this review. Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The 72 hours have passed and I don't see significant improvement, so I will fail this review. Feel invited to nominate again when the article is ready. Zwerg Nase (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)