Talk:Ravedeath, 1972

Ravedeath, 1972 was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (March 9, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

Canada: Music Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian music.

Electronic music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Electronic music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Electronic music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Electronic musicWikipedia:WikiProject Electronic musicTemplate:WikiProject Electronic musicelectronic music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Albums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ravedeath, 1972/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy (talk · contribs) 16:36, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but the article fails the review process at this time.

Lead paragraph is woefully short and understative of the article's contents. We cannot review what is not there, and there is even a recent cleanup template to this effect; the article has existed in this form for nearly two months.
Article suffers from organizational issues. Critical reactions & interpretations are used in place of actual information given by the artist himself (e.g. in "Sound and structure" instead of using references to the composer's own words and interviews, it is almost entirely made of opinions that should be placed in the Reception section).
Overall length leaves information wanting.

I encourage you to correct the above issues and try again. Good luck!