I will be taking on this review and expect to have my review complete in a few hours. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 20:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Below is my review, separated into sections. If you have questions, please don’t hesitate to ask. It looks like most of the previous GA review has been cleaned up. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
The second sentence: Founded in 1979 by brothers... is a sentence fragment. If you remove all of the descriptions it says, “Founded in 1979 by brothers et all.” Right now its just a preposition.
Oo yuck got it, thanks.
The lead is not chronological, the second paragraph is from 1991 through today, whereas the third paragraph is 1988 through 1991.
...the Fields grew-up... I would add the word “brothers” after Fields, since in the subject you are just talking about the brothers, where the end you are talking about the whole family.
Great feedback, got it.
...so they were very close. is not sourced. Where did this information come from?
My personal viewpoint about refs is that we tend to overuse them here. For me, a reference supports everything after the previous citation and all statements made before it. But I tend to follow the suggestions of my reviewers, so I added the extra ref.
Joseph Hallion is listed as a founder, but is not listed in the lead?
Done, thanks for the catch.
The last sentence of this section is not sourced. (This was an issue from the first GA review.)
I’m not sure if this section is necessary. The second point should/could be included in the article itself. I’m not sure if the first point is required information that is needed in the article at all.
Actually, I agree. The first note was added because another editor insisted upon it, and I didn't feel strongly about it one way or the other, so I'm good with removing it. I compromised on the second point by keeping it, but putting the note with the refs. Hope it's okay. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
File:Cockroaches band.jpg Might be a little large for WP:NFCC. My personal rule of thumb is that non-free images should never be larger than needed for the actual article. In this case the article’s image is approx 320px wide, whereas the image is nearly twice that. This is just a suggestion.
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking, but I changed the image size to 260. Let me know if I did it incorrectly please.
File:Cockroaches.ogg (same file) the current fair use rationale says the file is no more than 30 seconds, when in actuality it is 47 seconds. It is recommended that non-free audio clips (per Wikipedia:NFC#Audio_clips) be 30 seconds or 10% of the whole song, whichever is less, so in this case 30 seconds would be appropriate.
Everything looks good, except File:Cockroaches band.jpg, where I wasn't very clear. 320px in the article is fine, but the file itself is 650px. I'm happy to resize it for you if you would like, upload a new version, and delete the old. Also File:Cockroaches.ogg does need to be shortened, per policy, so we would need to cut 17 seconds of it yes. I'm happy to do this as well, but I'd probably cut off at a beat right at the 30 second mark, whereas you might want a more specific cut. After these are addressed, or at least acknowledged and in process, I'm happy to promote yet another example of fantastic work. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 22:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Suda. Yes, I will take you up on your offer, sir! ;) I've always said that my weakness in editing for WP is dealing with images; perhaps I should change it to all things media, even though I initially created the ogg file. I'd have to research how to do it now, so I'd appreciate your assistance, since you probably already have the resources at your disposal. Cutting the ogg file off at 30s would be fine. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
In that case, I have no choice but to pass this as your most recent example of a {{Good Article}}. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply
