Talk:We're Only in It for the Money/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC) I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am a slow reviewer, so if there is a desire to have the review done soon, then let me know and I'll withdraw now. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements rather than make long lists, though sometimes I will make a general comment, especially if there is a lot of work needed. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:44, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, so the likelihood of a response is quite low. Just letting you know as you do this. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had noticed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Failed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Comments

Pass

Reference section. There is an appropriate reference section. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Stable. No edit wars. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. Statements are supported by cites to appropriate sources. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of original research. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No indications of bias. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Images OK. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Query

*Image. File:ForTheMoney.jpg - can the use of this image be checked as appropriate for this article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 13:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Focus. In what manner is Kellgren's opinion of Zappa important to this article? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is possibly acceptable as meaning is conveyed; however it doesn't flow well, with the feeling that the information has been assembled in pieces. There are some short paragraphs. Some of the information is scattered and could be tighter organised. The first two paragraphs of Release are about the cover art, then a paragraph about the censoring, then a mixed paragraph starting with the album's placing in the charts, Zappa's dissatisfaction with the quality of the album, and a quote from Zappa regarding the censorship. But we don't get the release date. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reception. Allmusic's and Christgau's comments are part of the legacy, as they are not reviews contemporary with the release, while the Legacy section is mainly about re-releases rather than the impact, importance and considered critical opinion of the album. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganised. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:46, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage. Some material on the importance of the album would be useful. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

Lead. To meet GA criteria 1(b), which relates to specific manual of style guidelines, the article needs to comply with the advice in WP:LEAD. That is, in addition to being an introduction, the lead needs to be an adequate overview of the whole of the article. As a rough guide, each major section in the article should be represented with an appropriate summary in the lead. Also, the article should provide further details on all the things mentioned in the lead. And, the first few sentences should mention the most notable features of the article's subject - the essential facts that every reader should know. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:29, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hold

On hold for seven days to allow major contributors to address the concerns above. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 15:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fail

There's been no response to the review. Having looked closely at the article today, there is more work needed doing than I am willing to do myself. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:07, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]