Talk:Rapture (Bradley Joseph album)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-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. |
|
 |
Rapture (Bradley Joseph album) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: July 17, 2007 |
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of July 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?: There are only really 2 sections written; the intro and the history. Really, there are stubs with more writing then this. Your intro needs expansion per WP:LEAD, and you need sections on reception, production, any controversy, etc. See Dream Days at the Hotel Existence for a GA that contains all appropriate sections etc. (I wrote it, but anyways...)
- 2. Factually accurate?: This is ok, considering the minimal content. Make sure you expand it as the article grows.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: See well written section above.
- 4. Neutral point of view?:
- 5. Article stability?
- 6. Images?:
When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you for your work so far. — Giggy UCP 22:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Giggy. Thank you for reviewing this, must be a world record -- GA nom to review in under 8 minutes. Actually, I don't believe length is included in the criteria for Good articles, but rather dependent on quality. It is not very long, but does cover every aspect from all sources available. Any suggestions for improvement to prose would be welcome, but there is nothing more I can add to it. Cricket02 22:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- Copied from your talk page
- I agree that length isn't a GA criteria, but on {{FGAN}} one of the sections is "thorough" - and length inevitably ties in to this (in my eyes, anyway). As I said in my review, take a look at some of the other GA class articles, and expand more on the sources you have to work with. Place different information under appropriate subheadings (it also makes it more readable), and give it another go. I'd be happy to take a look at it again some time in the future (it's on my watchlist too, if you want to shout at me from the talk page), so good luck! Giggy UCP 23:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to respectfully disagree that length and thoroughness are not one and the same. In my experience, even FAs are not based on length. Also, with all due respect, nominating for GA at 22:21, and assuming it was clicked on within the same minute, with a review posted at 22:29, subtracting at least 3 minutes to write the review, leaves only about 5 minutes, which, in my humble opinion, would not be much time to actually review for thoroughness and evaluate sources. While I will agree that some MOS issues need to be addressed, which I will do soon, I cannot add anything to this article of which I do not have sources; therefore, it is as thorough as it can be. But I do thank you for your time and will work on your suggestions. Cricket02 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, length and thoroughness aren't directly linked, but you can't go into every aspect of an album with such a short article, hence I said it was not thorough.
- As for the timing...what can I say, I'm a fast reader, a fast thinker, and a fast writer. I read the entire article. I didn't click every reference and check every source, but I looked at some of them, definitely. Giggy UCP 03:30, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have to respectfully disagree that length and thoroughness are not one and the same. In my experience, even FAs are not based on length. Also, with all due respect, nominating for GA at 22:21, and assuming it was clicked on within the same minute, with a review posted at 22:29, subtracting at least 3 minutes to write the review, leaves only about 5 minutes, which, in my humble opinion, would not be much time to actually review for thoroughness and evaluate sources. While I will agree that some MOS issues need to be addressed, which I will do soon, I cannot add anything to this article of which I do not have sources; therefore, it is as thorough as it can be. But I do thank you for your time and will work on your suggestions. Cricket02 02:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
