Talk:The Jesus and Mary Chain/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 12:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to do a review of this. First things that leap out are the lead is probably to short per WP:MOSLEAD, there's a lengthy paragraph in "Post-split" without any references, and there aren't many images - I'd have thought the 2007 reunion would have least thrown up a few fan shots, with one or two being nice enough to licence as CC-BY-SA. Still, you can only use what you have. More later.....

Okay, specific comments, running from top to bottom are :

• The lead is a bit short. Other things that could go in are brief mentions of the albums, notable former members (particularly Gillespie) and what happened during their hiatus.

• Maybe worth mentioning their first gig resulted in a punch up?

• According to the Penny Black article, Gillespie was only a temporary replacement - worth adding?

• File:Jesus And Mary Chain Never Understand.ogg is tagged as requiring attention, and the description of it requires a citation, otherwise it sounds like original research

• The sentence on the Peel sessions doesn't scan quite right. Maybe change to "Following an earlier session for John Peel at the end of 1984, they were invited back for a second session in February 1985)" - also, do you have a citation for this?

• Semicolon following "Phil Spector" probably wants to be a full stop.

• "On returning to the UK they toured the UK" probably wants to be "On returning to the UK they started a tour there"

• Reviews of Darklands has a "citation needed" tagged

• Reception of Automatic "not received quite as well as its predecessors" needs a citation

• Douglas Hart's post Mary Chain career needs a citation

• Hope Sandoval performing on "Perfume" can also be cited to reference #41

• Jim being drunk at the House of Blues gig in 1999 has a "citation needed", and being a negative or potentially defamatory comment about a living person requires attention.

• The Independent interview describing the split can probably be found online somewhere and linked to.

• First whole paragraph in "Post-split" is unreferenced - I have tagged it as such so hopefully people will come to the rescue quickly

• Reference #45 is a dead link

• "a new album by the band is in the works" probably wants to read "a new album by the band was in the works" - unless it's still work in progress after 4 years!

• The Guitar Geek reference looks like an unreliable source. I'd get rid of this entire section

• Would it be worth adding a paragraph of bands they influenced? If they're as legendary as claimed, it shouldn't be hard to ferret out a couple of references saying this.

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

---

Taking the above comments into account, I can summarise them as follows :

1. It is reasonably well written.

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

   See comments about lead

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   As noted above, I've had to add a refimprove tag to one section, plus there are several other places that either tagged as requiring a citation or I think need one. Most of the sources seem to be reliable, apart from Guitar Geek and the dead link

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   As noted in the above comments, I think there's a few things that should be added in order for the article to be comprehensive

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Nothing particularly unstable seems to have occurred in the past year from a cursory look at the history and the talk page

6. 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):

   As mentioned above, the audio sample has a "requires attention" comment. As seen at the bottom of the article, Commons has a couple of free photos of the Reid brothers which would work well added in mid-points in the article. While a Good Article doesn't require photos, I think we can do more in this area.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Quite a bit of work to do to get this to GA status, but hopefully doable within a week, so I'm going to put this on hold pending the above suggestions. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

In the past week, the only evidence of work has been removing the "Equipment" section, and the nominator has not directly addressed any issues listed here. I regret, therefore, I'm going to have to fail this. Sorry. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)