Talk:The Amazing Jeckel Brothers/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   In the lead, "...as opposed to the rock-oriented sound of its predecessor, The Great Milenko" ---> "...as opposed to the rock-oriented sound of its predecessor, The Great Milenko (1997)", so that it can provide context for the reader. In the Recording and production section, "...and was instead released on a later album, 'Psychopathics from Outer Space" ---> "...and was instead released on a later album, Psychopathics from Outer Space (whenever it was released; 1999 or 2000)".

   Check.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   In the lead, and throughout the article, "...released on May 25, 1999 by Island Records" ---> "...released on May 25, 1999, by Island Records", commas after dates, if using MDY. In the lead, it would be best if "Recording Industry Association of America" was followed by ---> (RIAA), I mean, I know what it means, but how 'bout your reader, also per here. In the Musical style section, please link "Steve Jones" to its correspondence article, as at the moment it stands out as a disambiguation. In the Recording and production section, the dash in the part where it says Bruce felt insulted, needs to be an endash, as emdashes don't need space between them. Also, you might want to add "ICP" after mentioning Insane Clown Posse, I mean I know what ICP means, but how 'bout your reader. In the Lyrical section, the quote box, the quote shouldn't have quotation marks within quotations, per here.

   Half-check.

   Check.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. 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):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   If the statements above can be answered, I will pass the article. Good luck with improving this article!

--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Two more bits left. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:46, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Check [on both].

Thank you to Sugar Bear and Juggalobrink for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 16:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)