Talk:Sucker Punch (soundtrack)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Ashliveslove in topic GA Review
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sucker Punch (soundtrack) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Sucker Punch (soundtrack) 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. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Sucker Punch (soundtrack)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ashliveslove (talk · contribs) 10:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Review
- No dead links found.
- found no edit wars.
- Will be referring to other soundtrack articles to see if this article need any improvement or not. ASHUIND 14:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
- I feel the composition section can be expanded. Please work on it since it's only mentioning where the song is taken from and reception about that particular song is quoted. ASHUIND 15:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- Added more content to it. igordebraga ≠ 01:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Now it seems good enough. ASHUIND 04:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Are there no certificates for this album? like platinum or gold? ASHUIND 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- No (chart runs are modest). igordebraga ≠ 15:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- Are there no certificates for this album? like platinum or gold? ASHUIND 09:26, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Final Analysis
edit- It is reasonably well written.
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- Not much concerns here. ASHUIND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- No such concerns here. Article has been searched thoroughly for such references. ASHUIND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- All such aspects have been covered. Some issues were there but were resolved. ASHUIND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fine here.
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- All images are proper till the review date and well captioned. ASHUIND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Keep up the good quality of Article. Don't let it delisted.
Regards.
ASHUIND 18:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)