| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: — Legolas (talk2me) 13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- The lead section doesnot conform to WP:LEAD. Please extend it. For such a large article, it should be atleast three paras.
- No internal wikilink in the infobox please per WP:IBX.
- No album tracklisting.
- The pink background in the Music and lyrics section just looks plain cheap and highlt unencyclopedic.
- The video image needs trimming of the black borders.
- You have a section named Critical reception, then inside it you have Chart performance, why and how are they related?
- Release history is a miscellaneous info and comes at the bottom of the page. + its unsourced
- The official version table looks a complete mess. I could not even understand any thing clearly and why is it exactly needed and why are these versions not in the tracklisting section?
- Sales is from Farmer's official website and fails reliability.
- File:Fuck Them All.jpg, not enough rationale.
- File:Fuck Them All (video).jpg, not enough rationale.
- There is no sample of the song, so that the reader can understand what the article and the music section is talking about.
- Prose:
- I'm pretty sure another thorough copyedit is needed, although one was done by the GOCE. But then that doesnot explain existence of prose loosenings, some of which I will list.
- In spite of some success on the French and Belgian (Wallonia) charts, where it reached number two – the album's best-selling charting – the song received mixed reviews and was generally deemed a disappointment. --> Goes in a total roundabout way.
- Teh music video section. Pretty much sums up what I feel because sentences are coming without any previous conjencture, like "Nearby there is a trapped short-haired woman with a flayed face and crow-like eyes"
- "Certified Silver by the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique two months after being released,[43] "Fuck Them All" was the 70th best-selling single of 2005." --> There wasn't any mention of the shipments, except a reference to Farmer's official site.
- I'm pretty sure another thorough copyedit is needed, although one was done by the GOCE. But then that doesnot explain existence of prose loosenings, some of which I will list.
.jpg){kind=link}
Overall I would say that the work is good, there is pretty much everything needed to make it a GA, just that there is a huge arrangement and design problem. The overall look feels pretty haphazard, and doesnot flow well. I would strongly recommend going through FA song articles like " 4 Minutes", and recent GAs like " When Love Takes Over", " Bad Romance" etc. It just seems too much of work needed at present to even put it on hold. Go through a peer review and then re-nominate again. This is a regretful failing, as I know Europe22 is a wonderful editor. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: — Legolas (talk2me) 13:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Comments
- The lead section doesnot conform to WP:LEAD. Please extend it. For such a large article, it should be atleast three paras.
- No internal wikilink in the infobox please per WP:IBX.
- No album tracklisting.
- The pink background in the Music and lyrics section just looks plain cheap and highlt unencyclopedic.
- The video image needs trimming of the black borders.
- You have a section named Critical reception, then inside it you have Chart performance, why and how are they related?
- Release history is a miscellaneous info and comes at the bottom of the page. + its unsourced
- The official version table looks a complete mess. I could not even understand any thing clearly and why is it exactly needed and why are these versions not in the tracklisting section?
- Sales is from Farmer's official website and fails reliability.
- File:Fuck Them All.jpg, not enough rationale.
- File:Fuck Them All (video).jpg, not enough rationale.
- There is no sample of the song, so that the reader can understand what the article and the music section is talking about.
- Prose:
- I'm pretty sure another thorough copyedit is needed, although one was done by the GOCE. But then that doesnot explain existence of prose loosenings, some of which I will list.
- In spite of some success on the French and Belgian (Wallonia) charts, where it reached number two – the album's best-selling charting – the song received mixed reviews and was generally deemed a disappointment. --> Goes in a total roundabout way.
- Teh music video section. Pretty much sums up what I feel because sentences are coming without any previous conjencture, like "Nearby there is a trapped short-haired woman with a flayed face and crow-like eyes"
- "Certified Silver by the Syndicat National de l'Édition Phonographique two months after being released,[43] "Fuck Them All" was the 70th best-selling single of 2005." --> There wasn't any mention of the shipments, except a reference to Farmer's official site.
- I'm pretty sure another thorough copyedit is needed, although one was done by the GOCE. But then that doesnot explain existence of prose loosenings, some of which I will list.
Overall I would say that the work is good, there is pretty much everything needed to make it a GA, just that there is a huge arrangement and design problem. The overall look feels pretty haphazard, and doesnot flow well. I would strongly recommend going through FA song articles like " 4 Minutes", and recent GAs like " When Love Takes Over", " Bad Romance" etc. It just seems too much of work needed at present to even put it on hold. Go through a peer review and then re-nominate again. This is a regretful failing, as I know Europe22 is a wonderful editor. — Legolas (talk2me) 06:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)