Talk:Selfish Machines/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Freikorp (talk · contribs) 12:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel obligated but I'm looking for comments on my current peer review if you're interested. Freikorp (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do the above, but I'm not sure I'd be of any help. I've not yet gotten a Featured Article myself, despite this being my 19th GA if it passes. This article should be fairly easy. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries :). Just for the record you wouldn't have to specifically comment on what would be needed to make it a featured article, you could just point out anything you see that you think could be improved in general. But no pressure, I don't want you to feel like you 'owe' me a review. Freikorp (talk) 23:13, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
In the lead, Vic Fuentes should be introduced as the lead singer of the band.

I wouldn't pipe Equal Vision Records to 'Equal Vision', I'd leave it as it is

The use of the word 'guested' in the lead might be unclear to people; I'd suggested rewording with something a bit more formal or wikilinking the word to an appropriate article, if one exists

"release in the fall" - can you be more specific? I ask as the 'fall' in America is at a very different time of year to, for example, people such as myself in the southern hemisphere. Also this term is only used in North America so non-native English speakers in other countries (or people living under rocks and not familiar with American pop culture) might be confused by what it means

"as Fuentes commented" - I'd reword this to 'according to Fuentes', but up to you

"It was revealed on December 27, 2009," - is it really necessary to specify the full date here? I'd shorten to the month at the least, but I'm not sure if this needs a date at all

"Mike broke a microphone" - this raises questions about how he broke it. Is this information available?
Mike: "I smashed a $6,000 overhead mic while tracking and it completely exploded". What do I do with that?
If that's the only information that's available I'd say just leave it as it is. :)

"the vocals and keyboard tracks had yet to be recorded, but the album was otherwise complete." Vocals seem like a big part of an album to me, accordingly 'otherwise complete' reads a bit humorously, kind of like saying a car was almost otherwise ready to drive except it had no wheels. I'd reword to something like 'the vocals and keyboard tracks had yet to be recorded though all other components had been completed'.

"were a lot of distractions that we didn't need" - this raises questions; can you elaborate at all?

"shows off the band's Latin influence" - 'shows off' seems a bit unencyclopaedic, same problem with "showed off the band's punk roots"

"The track was the "craziest, most intense song" that Fuentes has written" - this isn't OK. It needs attribution. We're getting pretty heavy on quotes in this paragraph so I'd suggest paraphrasing if possible anyway.

"fascination with southern girls" - I'd wikilink southern to Southern United States for non-American readers

"they were making out in the dark" - making out is a bit colloquial, I'd just say 'kissing'

There's too many quotes in the 'Music and lyrics' section. In some cases its necessary to emphasize its an opinion but I'd really try and paraphrase, say, at least a third of these

"The iTunes bonus track was 'She Makes Dirty Words Sound Pretty'" - this wording makes it sound like all iTunes albums have a bonus track. I'd say something like "'She Makes Dirty Words Sound Pretty' was included as a bonus track on the iTunes version"

"the band went on the Warped Tour" - where did this happen?
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
What makes Shakefire and antimusic.com reliable sources?

Why is 'Aubin Paul' specified as the publisher of all the PunkNews.org articles he has written?
Oops. He's the author. These references were formed a long time ago who at the time was inexperienced.

One of your AbsolutePunk sources is dead. An archived version exists though: [1]

You should only use the |publisher= parameter if the publisher is significantly different from the |work= parameter. For example '|work=Alternative Press|publisher=Alternative Press Magazine, Inc' is a bit redundant; you can just delete the publisher parameter

It looks like work and publisher formats are used inconsistently anyway. For example, four sources list punknews.org as the work whereas one lists it as the publisher. This becomes apparent when looking at the references as one formats as italics and the other does not. Go through each source and make which parameter you use consistent.

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Are you sure you can't find any more reviews of the album? The reception section is noticeable thin in comparison to your other sections.
I searched for more when I nominated this. Go ahead, you see how many you can find, you'll be surprised when you come up with loads of questionably reliable and/or extremely short, meaningless reviews. Also, thank you Allmusic for giving an absolutely useless review.

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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
A free image of someone involved with the album wouldn't go astray, but up to you.
Overall:
Pass or Fail: Placing this one on hold for seven days so issues can be addressed. Freikorp (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to pardon me, I just finished some final exams in University, so I've been held up. I have one more that I'm prepared for scheduled for Thursday, but I fully intend to fix everything here. I also have a GAN I waited on a while where my attention was requested here, so I'm just letting you know that patience will get you somewhere, I promise. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 03:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for letting me know. Good luck in your exam. :) Freikorp (talk) 05:29, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DannyMusicEditor. Just checking in to see how you're going with this. Also letting you know I'll be going away from the 23rd to the 26th this month so won't be able to reply to anything between those dates. Accordingly this isn't in any danger of being closed until at least the 27th. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)\[reply]

Okay. I think I've done my best on the issues raised at no. 1, and I'll start work on the others now. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 00:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DannyMusicEditor. How are you going with this? Freikorp (talk) 13:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I finished everything I could. Did I miss anything? What do you think? dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 02:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the dead link was still there, but I've just archived it myself. I'm pretty sure that was the only thing you missed though. Well done overall. Happy to pass this now. Freikorp (talk) 10:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]