Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Unhalfbricking/1

< Wikipedia:Good article reassessment

Unhalfbricking edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Keep KitchenRoll in particular has addressed the problems at hand. Consensus is keep.
  • The "History: Simon nicole writes about Fairport" is missing the name of the work.
  • What makes informatic.uni-hamburg.de a reliable source?
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • The infobox shouldn't have any reviews in it.
I don't see that in the GA criteria, it is commonly used in album articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be in the GA criteria, but note that the docs for {{Infobox album}} say "Formerly, a Reviews field was included in this template. Professional reviews should no longer be included in the infobox, but be described in paragraph form in a "Reception" section. See WP:Albums#Reception." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 15:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, i didn't know of that change. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation 20 ("Who knows where the time goes?" from the BBC) is a dead link. It should also credit the source and preferably not have something vague like "18 minutes in".
  • The Chart Stats.com cites don't have the name of the work in them. One is also mising an accessdate.
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • One of the hamburg.de sources ("previously unreleased out-take: Zierke, Reinhard") doesn't have the name of the work.
  • What makes this a reliable source? It appears to be a fansite with no proof of accuracy.
  • The citations shouldn't have detritus like "due to the said stack falling over during the recording" or "previously unreleased out-take" in them. Those should be in standalone footnotes.
  • Prose issues. Almost every sentence in "Title and cover" subheading begins with "the".
  • Personnel section is unsourced. It should have a citation to the liner notes if nothing else.
  • In the intro, "And arguably reached its peak", "mark a turning point in the band's history", "prolific year" — weasel wording. Get rid of it.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the other comments, but note that the WP:GACR makes no mention of specific formatting of in-line citations other than those in science articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 06:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed a little while ago that the article was below standard for a GA, and started an individual GAR in order to improve it. I couldn't find good sources and then got distracted so closed the GAR as it seemed inappropriate to keep it open indefinitely. I'm pleased a community GAR has been opened, and hopefully some attention will be paid to improving the quality of the prose, the sources, and the coverage. Statements are not always supported by sources - nothing here: "Unhalfbricking appeared, therefore, at a difficult time for the group, but was enthusiastically received. After a period of intense reflection about their future they decided to pursue the folk rock idea further and violinist Dave Swarbrick was invited to join full-time for the follow-up, Liege & Lief." is found in the source. Indeed, the source says almost the opposite of one of the statements - "they decided to pursue the folk rock idea further" by saying "they started to edge toward a more traditional British folk-slanted sound". There is a sourced statement that the alternative cover was done because the band upset the record company - yet it was done by the acclaimed A&M designer Tom Wilkes, and it was quite common for labels to be redesigned for American release, so such a contentious, unusual and unlikely claim needs more sourcing, removing or reformatting to indicate that the claim comes from a single source. There is no mention here of the band having problems with A&M. The unsourced statement that the album was "enthusiastically received" does not match with the moderate commercial success, and we have no contemporary reviews, though modern ones do not indicate that the contemporary critical response was enthusiastic. There is a general feel of a series of notes - short sentences and short paragraphs - so at the moment the article does not flow, and does not provide the reader with a useful informed overview of the topic. There is speculative original research, as in "Genesis Hall was the nickname of the former Bell Hotel in Drury Lane, which had become a squat in early 1969 and later became noted for a mass eviction by the police." The lyrics do not indicate that it is about the squat - and as the squat was named Genesis Hall in the same year the album was released it is not clear which came first, and it may be coincidental. The source merely indicates the squat, it does not mention the song, and provides no connection. My feeling is that the article is in the early stages of construction and needs a fair amount of work to provide appropriate and accurate information which is made difficult by lack of helpful sources. I have tried, but didn't get far. I hope that the community GAR will work, though note that after 10 days no work has been done. Unless there is an attempt at improvement in the next few days I support delisting. SilkTork *YES! 11:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist, no editing has taken place since 6 March. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can an uninvolved editor close this please? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Unhalfbricking/1&oldid=1091466707"