Talk:Richard D. James Album
Richard D. James Album is currently an Albums good article nominee. Nominated by lunaeclipse ⚧ (talk) at 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.
|
Richard D. James Album (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 22 August 2024 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
B-class
[edit]How much work does this article need to reach B-class? I can't find any reliable sources about copies sold, background or release. – electricController 15:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- To get it to be B-class, I would suggest posting the album at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment#Requesting_an_assessment and note you are looking for a B-class review, someone will take a peak at it from there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrzejbanas: Thank you. – electricController 18:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Great work on taking a step forward on this article. I think its looking fairly good but I'd suggest we combine the smaller sections unless you think they will be expanded further. Sections that are only one paragraph or less long usually look "unfinished" even if its all the information we can get. I often combine "release and reception" sections if the albums I review don't really chart or get re-released or whatever. Might be an idea here, but no real pressure. Great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Thanks! Great suggestion. – electricController 18:11, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Great work on taking a step forward on this article. I think its looking fairly good but I'd suggest we combine the smaller sections unless you think they will be expanded further. Sections that are only one paragraph or less long usually look "unfinished" even if its all the information we can get. I often combine "release and reception" sections if the albums I review don't really chart or get re-released or whatever. Might be an idea here, but no real pressure. Great work! Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Andrzejbanas: Thank you. – electricController 18:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
GA Review
[edit]GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Richard D. James Album/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 00:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: Chchcheckit (talk · contribs) 16:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll get to this pretty soon.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
· · · |
Well-written
- The reception section is good. Currently looking through other parts.
- I feel that the Release section should be rejigged; Music & Media (cited in sales box) notes how it was Warp Records best-selling release at that point with 100,000 copies sold, and this 1997 interview decipts RDJ's suprise at this. Also; the chart information mentioned in the lead should be referenced in the "release section" as well.
- no pagenumbers for Kirn 2011?
Accuracy/Verifiability/Spotchecks
- The "Usage In Media" section mostly appears to be original research (WP:OR) save for the references on "4" and "Girl/Boy Song" which could be better incorporated into the article (i'm still writing so give me a second to explain myself)
- earwig copyvio checks out.
NPOV
- pending, reception is good though
Stability
- Appears to be since August 22.
Illustrations/Images
- Artwork and images of plug n Squarepusher are all appropriately rationaled; no problems there.
- "4" audio sample appears to be 10 seconds too long per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples, but it passed review. (states that 10% of song should be used. "4" is 3:37 or 217 seconds long, and 10% of that is 21.7 seconds) Not sure about this one, I'll ponder.
Going through still // Chchcheckit (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)