Talk:Slade/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Petergriffin9901 (talk • message • contribs • count • logs • email) 10:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again a Near-automatic fail - Many issues persist

Lead does not sufficiently summarize important aspects of their career
Several instances where you go completely off topic
Too much info on individual song peaks and not enough discussion on the albums and development and musical styles
Several unformated or poorly done sources; several unreliable
Violated MoS like crazy, and has difficult paragraphing and awkward phrasing
Poor usage or quotations from professional sources.
Overall this article needs a lot of work. Seven days.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 10:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the info and the review of the article. I am away from the 4th to the 7th this month so I may require a little more time.

The lead doesn't summarize the band's career and so I will try to edit this soon. The paragraphs could be slightly altered indeed but any indication on what violates MoS would be useful. Also, any info on where the article goes off-topic as well as what sources are unreliable would be much appreciated. Thanks. Ajsmith141 (talk) 15:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lot of work has been put into the article, so if you need an extension, that's okay, as long as you being productive with the extra time.
The last three sections read like big lists. They need to be changed and have to read like an encyclopedia
The paragraphing is very awkward and forced. One line paragraphs?
many quote and lines are completely unreferenced
Many, many unreliable and poorly formatted references. Many of dead-links, many are just random unreliable sources, and other are just blank URLs.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Putting in some additional comments here, some of the MOS issues that immediately spring to mind include:

Use of # should be replaced with "number" as per WP:Not #
Periods in years should be to two places (eg. 1976-78) as per WP:YEAR
Titles of albums in italics and singles in inverted commas as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles
Numbers under 10 should be written and those over in numerals as per WP:ORDINAL
Quotes should not be italicised as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Italics
Use logical punctuation throughout (a problem mainly in the Legacy section) as per MOS:LQ

This list is not exclusive, and it up to the reviewer whether they are enough to negate GA status, but it would be good to get them right and I hope this helps. For me greater problems in the general use of English. All the isolated one-sentence paragraphs towards the end of the article need sorting, and there a lot of issues with plurals and commas - too many to list here. The biggest issue is the cumbersome language. For example:

"As a result of the band's success, the group hurriedly released the extended play titled "Live at Reading" a month later which peaked at #44, the band's first chart action in the UK since 1977. Another extended play was released, titled "Xmas Ear Bender" which peaked at #70 in November. Polydor Records had seen the opportunity to capitalise on the band's new success by releasing the compilation Slade Smashes! at the beginning of November. The album peaked at #21 in the UK for a total of fifteen weeks. The album was certified UK Gold in December, selling 200,000 copies."

would be much better if it was something like:

"The band's success led to the hurried released of the extended play "Live at Reading", which peaked at number 44, the band's first chart appearance in the UK since 1977. Another extended play, "Xmas Ear Bender", peaked at number 70 later that year. Polydor attempted to capitalise on the band's renewed success by releasing the compilation Slade Smashes! at the beginning of November. The album peaked at number 21 in the UK for a total of 15 weeks and was certified UK Gold in December, selling 200,000 copies."

That kind of copy edit could probably reduce the size of the article by 1/8 or more, without saying anything less of significance. Hope that helps.--SabreBD (talk) 13:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice of you Sabre. Thanks for explaining it to him. Your comments are always welcome :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the info, I have been through the entire article. All # have been replaced with numbers, sentences flow better although they could still use the reduction idea above. Quotes are not in italics, periods in years are changed and the legacy/awards/musical style has been changed - not complete yet but looking better.Ajsmith141 (talk) 12:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important - Just to let you know, I must close the review by the 11th, as I am going away, so if its not ready by Sunday, I'm afraid this will result in a fail.--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 23:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]