Talk:The Dark Side of the Moon/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
I am going to do this now, so that you won't have to sit here and wait for what could take a few weeks, as it looks like whoever is working on this has been extensively working on the article. I am quickfailing this article. I see quite a handful of [citation needed] statements, and a lead should ONLY be a summary of the article below it. The lead should not have citations in it. It should have none whatsoever. I am going to quickfail this, so that whoever is working on this article can keep working on it, and re-nominate it at a later date. Good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 22:44, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

• Just as a point for future interest, there is no rule that the lead should be citation free, and there are very clear cases where citations are required in the lead. I don't agree with your quickfail decision, but I will leave it to the nominator as to whether this is now taken to WP:GAR or not. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

The lead should only be a summary of the content in the article. Unless it's a quote, there really shouldn't be any citations in the lead. For example, the release date could instead be cited in the infobox. And I'm sure the second citation is mentioned in the article below, so it is not needed in the lead either. And the third citation is of a statement that is a general summary of the critical reception section, and also doesn't need a citation. The lead should only be a summary of the article below, no new information should be in there. Also, I am pretty sure any article with [citation needed] tags would be quickfailed by most other reviewers. Basically, the article is close to GA level, but still needs some touching up. If you need more clarification, I will go over this in more detail later, as I have to go now. See you all. :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you for clarification, I was trying to clarify things for you. Have you read this part of the MoS? Information in the lead is not exempt from the requirement to be cited. I have no opinion on whether the information cited in the lead needs to be cited or not, I am simply making the point that there is no rule that citations should not appear in the lead. Quite the reverse in fact.

A "large number" of {{fact}} tags might indeed be a cause for a quickfail, but I quote: "If it is apparent from the article edit history and talk page that the nominator has already put extensive work into the article and is genuinely trying to improve its quality, then generally a quick-fail is inappropriate even if obvious issues still exist."[1] I count nine, but none of them seem difficult to deal with during a hold period. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on providing sources for the {{fact}} tags but I'm surprised you quickfailed the article - I'd say that nearly all of it is well referenced - most of the {{fact}} tags are old content from other editors that I have left in in lieu of arguments on the article's talk page. Rock and a hard place. I'm just about the only editor (bar Malleus) working on it right now, so I nominated it when I did as there is a large backlog and a GA review would no doubt have highlighted other issues I needed to be aware of, saving valuable time. To quickfail on 3) is, I think, a little trigger-happy - although, I suppose, justified. I'll delete the content I feel will not be possible to reference. Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Compromise

OK, I was incorrect in quickfailing the article, then. Feel free to re-nominate it. Have a good one, and good luck! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you were technically incorrect, the criteria lets you quickfail for those tags, but I'm not too bothered, it nudged me to delete material I was unlikely to find a source for anyway :) I'm struggling to find sources for Aus, France and Germany album sales... Parrot of Doom (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)