| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've just bumped the article from C to B and see that it failed GA four years ago; all points mentioned then are adressed now. Since WP:GAN#MUS has a huge backlog and avises to get a peer review instead, I'm doing this. What's missing for GA/A/FA?
Thanks, Oneiros (talk) 23:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The prose doesn't read too badly, but the most serious fault with the article is its lack of citations. There are a few citation tags in place, but there ought to be many more; whole areas of the article, including direct quotations, are uncited. I think such an obvious defect needs to be tackled before the article is ready for a detailed peer review. Brianboulton (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)