1,000 Years received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

1,000 Years was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 27, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted on 21 March 2013 by reviewer Rybec ( talk · contribs). Albums 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.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum articles

This review is transcluded from Talk:1,000 Years/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: LazyBastardGuy ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Give me a moment and I will post my thoughts on this review. reply

I'm afraid I have to fail the article immediately. It seems the nomination is too soon. A cursory glance reveals the article has many issues and is in violation of at least half the GA criteria.

• The lead paragraph is woefully short and does not adquately summarize even what little detail the article has.
• Too many direct quotes; most of this should be paraphrased.
• "Influences" section is little more than a list, and "Composition" section is mostly comprised of material that should be included in the "Reception" section.
• "Reception", speaking of which, has many review scores but relatively few reviews are even mentioned in the article. If it cannot be expanded, anything in the "Accolades" subsection should be merged upward into the rest of the section.
• Critical approval should be collated entirely into that section; for example, I don't understand the need to point this out in the lead paragraph: "Stephen Thompson of NPR was one of many critics who wrote favorably of the album." It's the only review cited by name here and it does not appear elsewhere in the article. Symptomatic of the article's organizational issues.
• Coverage is not sufficiently broad. The article barely scratches the surface of the subject. It is currently C-class, but in my mind it barely even meets those criteria.
• Citations are not formatted properly. Nearly all of them are little more than hyperlinks with names. Please fill out the citation templates properly to avoid the dangers associated with sources getting link rot.

Article is unfinished and further review is not necessary. Please expand the article, write proper citations and organize the article better, and resubmit for nomination at a later time.

• In retrospect, you're right, LazyBastardGuy. I shouldn't have nominated this article, it wasn't (and still isn't) ready to be upgraded to "good". Jinkinson ( talk) 13:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Of course, it can someday qualify. I apologize if my tone was rather brusque with my review. The issues as I saw them were not the kind that could be fixed during review, mostly because there isn't much to work with. I hope the article makes it someday, though. Good luck. Lazy Bastard Guy 19:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply