Talk:Being There (album)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Being There (album) has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Featured topic star Being There (album) is part of the "Wilco discography" series (project page), a featured topic identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
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.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Kim Gordon and Thurston Moore of Sonic Youth This article is part of the Alternative music WikiProject, a group of Wikipedians interested in improving the encyclopaedic coverage of articles relating to Alternative rock. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the Project's importance scale.

[edit] <^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>

[edit] Uhh what?

"Tweedy felt that Wilco was incomplete without a second guitarist in addition to John Stirratt." Except for a few occasions, Mr. Stirratt is the bass player. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.86.75.37 (talk) 05:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] GA review

Easy one this time, I made a couple of WP:MOS changes (en-dashes mainly for page ranges in the references) but other than that, it's good to go to WP:GA.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Good work. The Rambling Man 14:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)