Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria/1

The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: List as GA per consensus below that - after significant improvements and a re-review - the article meets the GA criteria. Geometry guy 20:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Is there any explanation on why this is at GAR? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and they said I should nominate it for a community reassessment. CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair enough. In future when creating a reassessment page, the idea is that the nominating user provides a short brief description of why he/she feels that the incorrect decision was made and why he/she feels the community needs to reassess the article. That then helps other reviews, who come along to participate in the reassessment, to tailor their comments specifically to your concerns. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comments from Unique1

Per WP:Record charts the only reliable source for charts is the official chart provider themselves.

Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Equally we only accept certificates sourced from the certificate provider.

Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore the majority of this article is sourced from blabbermouth.net. I'm not sure how reliable the site is but either way I don't think good articles should heavily rely on one source are not good examples of referencing. It is never good if an article uses a particular website a lot.

Blabbermouth.net is an established, third-party website in it's respectful field, and is parented by Roadrunner Records. I don't see how using a particular source in an article makes the article less reliable… CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was what I was not sure about. But I feel more assured now. However I still urge you to try and find some other alternative sources as the article is heavily reliant on Blabbermouth.net. Yet I will not see this as an issue in my saying: I don't object to the article now being promoted. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes should only have one release date.

Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The background and release section reads like a diary... "on this date..." and "on this date..."

Rewritten CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The contents section are not sourced and the use of four columns is discouraged as it will not appear properly on people who use a computer with a smaller screen resolution.

Done CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The RIAA and Allmusic references are improperly formatted, they're missing publishers etc. RIAA could also be linked. The Stylus Magazine reference is missing an accessdate. Reference 19 (chartifacts) has an inconsistent date format with the rest of the article. -- Lil_℧n iquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the refs you mentioned except for the Stylus reference, per WP:CITEHOW stating that if the article's publish date is given, access date is not required. CrowzRSA 19:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard Music DVD Chart → specify the country. e.g. U.S. Billboard Music DVD Chart

Done CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you listed Hitparade as a chart? Hit parade/Steffun Hung together run the Swiss Album Chart source.

FixedCrowz RSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally you need to link the specific chart page e.g. this not this.

Done CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also in most cases you've added Music DVD chart at your own discretion but the sources provided simply say the album charted on the country's album chart but doesn't specify any further. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 19:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just a little comment, there's a dab link in the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed CrowzRSA 22:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final things
- Ref 24 and 29 are incorrectly formatted. Scroll down and you'll see what I mean. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - …Sorry, do you mean that uh,,, I'm bad at this… Sorry CrowzRSA 02:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm itching to give my approval... just a few minor things:
    - reference [9] is missing a publisher → Roadrunnerrecords.com (Roadrunner Records)
      - Done. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - ref [17] is missing a link... link About.com.
      - Done. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In ref number [27].. there is missing a publisher: Prometheus Global Media.
      - Fixed. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - reference [29] is formatted incorrectly. For some reason the url is showing up bare, instead of a title. Also the publisher should match the publishers listed in other Aria.com sources. None match presently.
      - The title actually is the four URLs (see [1]). I don't know if I should change it since it is the actual title… As for the aria thing, I think it's fixed. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Ahh i've seen this before with ARIA... yeah I'd change to "ARIA Charts - Accreditations - 2010 DVDs" as this is more inline with the title's ARIA publishes for singles. I guess its an error? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds about right,,, fixed. CrowzRSA 03:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - reference [33] link unitalicise Allmusic. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Done. CrowzRSA 03:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Its still showing up in italics.... ? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk]
        Sorry, now it's done CrowzRSA 03:38, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support promotion to GA, after a little bit of feedback (essentially a mini re-review) and several days of editing this article is now of the correct standard. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comments and support, CrowzRSA 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment - the UK Albums Chart peak is unreferenced. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:44, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how I missed that, but it's Fixed. CrowzRSA 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my previous quick-fail of the article before, but now since a re-review basically occured, I'll be happy to Support.=D--Blackjacks101 (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! CrowzRSA 00:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like editors are ready to list this article now, so this reassessment can be closed. One question first: why is the blogcritics review not given a sentence or two in the Reception? (It is mentioned in the lead.) Geometry guy 23:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added some info in the Reception section. CrowzRSA 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]