Talk:Grandaddy/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lachlan, I'll be glad to take this one; sorry you've had to wait so long for a reviewer. Comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for all your work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

On first pass, this looks quite good for prose/sourcing/neutrality. In particular, the prose is clean and readable compared to a lot of nominations I've been reviewing this week! Thanks again for your work on it. Just a few small questions/action points so far. Next I'll do source and image review.

• "In 2011, he released his third All Smiles album, Staylow and Mighty." -- tagged since June as needing citation.

If I may…? I just had a quick look, it's not on AllMusic but Rocksucker.co.uk has this, which was the first thing I looked at, and describes the album as "out now" on 1 September 2011 (scroll to the end), any good? I see that Rocksucker.co.uk has been cited in a number of articles, but I didn't find any mention of it at WP:RS/N. Nortonius (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks fine--thanks for chiming in! I'll add it in a minute. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, done. Nortonius, if you also want to untangle that bit about Burtch, this is ready to pass. Otherwise I can take a look later; I'm working on another review at the moment, so popping back and forth. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure, thanks for taking this on Khazar2. Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• "Burtch has been in a band" -- why the "has been" here instead of "was"?
• "Burtch and Lytle, along with Earlimart's Aaron Espinoza and Ariana Murray, have since formed" -- so did Burtch not rejoin Grandaddy? Or is he in all three of these bands? The timeline's a bit unclear in this paragraph; it also seems redundant with the above discussion of Admiral Radley -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made some changes, does it look any better now? Nortonius (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Checklist

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	One paragraph needs a bit of clarity (above). Spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	One statement is marked as needing citation (above)
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass as GA