Talk:Sempiternal (album)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I remember looking at this article recently, and it definitely had some problems. The cleanup banner I remember is gone, but let's see what this article has for us. I just hope the nominator actually knows what he's doing this time. First GANs are generally hard. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Correction: Quickfail. The nominator has been blocked for hoaxing. I'll give a list of problems this article has later anyway. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 14:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

---

Jeez, this thing's not even B-Class. Reads more like a C. I think There is a Hell... is in better condition.

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   Prose is poor in several sections of the article. The list in the critical reception section is unnecessary.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Ten dead links detected. Property of Zack, Metal Storm, and adamNOTeve don't appear reliable, and I'm unfamiliar with Lambgoat.com. I'm suspicious. There aren't enough refs for the singles. The last line of the Weinhofen credit section doesn't necessarily constitute that it was written about him. All the quotes in that paragraph should be cited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Reception section needs some huge expansion. And the section for the individual tracks - is that the best you can do? There's also no mention of the album's fourth single in the Singles section.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Article has so many issues, why even bother scraping for this stuff? I mean, I didn't notice any clear violations.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   There haven't been a lot of edits to this article recently, but the ones that have have mostly been reverted. I don't know how I feel about that.

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:

God knows how this mess even got to be a B-Class article. I mean, yes, I have edited the article, but have not been a heavy contributor, so I believe I am currently fine to call this verdict.