The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [1].
I initially nominated this article for FA a few weeks ago, but apart from Ealdgyth's customary review of sources (all OK) and Truco's regular review of ref formatting (all OK), it attracted no comments whatsoever. I've therefore given it 10 days or so and am renominating, hopefully it will grab people this time :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Support Comments for now from
GrahamColm (
talk ·
contribs)
On the whole, I am impressed with the quality of the prose, the pace of the article and its comprehensiveness. I have made few edits to remove a little redundancy and I have some more comments:
I will keep this page on my watchlist and give my support/oppose later. I would like to see more comments from other editors. Graham.
Graham Colm
Talk
11:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs) It's pretty good, but there are problems with redundancy that Graham noted above.
Media review: the two concert photos seem fine—appropriately licensed; I fixed the album cover—rationale and size should be fine now; that leaves one concern, the sound clip...
Oppose. EDIT: Struck
Steve
T •
C Some prose and potential sourcing issues. It seems like a large list, but could be resolvable in the timeframe available, so I'll watch this page for your responses:
Arular is the 2005 debut album by British musician M.I.A. Originally set for a September 2004 release, the album was delayed due to sample issues. Arular was released in the United States on 22 March 2005..."
This provides the reader with everything they need to understand the score, without having to leave your article.Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, reported that reviews were "generally favourable", with an average score of 63 based on 38 reviews.
This is what I caught on a first pass. I'm also slightly concerned that two of the three sources I checked for clarification didn't support the statements as written. Though I do understand that it's easily done—disconnecting a cite from a statement—when chopping and changing and copyediting in preparation for FAC. Look out for others. All the best, Steve T • C 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 22:19, 11 April 2009 [1].
I initially nominated this article for FA a few weeks ago, but apart from Ealdgyth's customary review of sources (all OK) and Truco's regular review of ref formatting (all OK), it attracted no comments whatsoever. I've therefore given it 10 days or so and am renominating, hopefully it will grab people this time :-) -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC) reply
Support Comments for now from
GrahamColm (
talk ·
contribs)
On the whole, I am impressed with the quality of the prose, the pace of the article and its comprehensiveness. I have made few edits to remove a little redundancy and I have some more comments:
I will keep this page on my watchlist and give my support/oppose later. I would like to see more comments from other editors. Graham.
Graham Colm
Talk
11:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
reply
Support Comments from
Dabomb87 (
talk ·
contribs) It's pretty good, but there are problems with redundancy that Graham noted above.
Media review: the two concert photos seem fine—appropriately licensed; I fixed the album cover—rationale and size should be fine now; that leaves one concern, the sound clip...
Oppose. EDIT: Struck
Steve
T •
C Some prose and potential sourcing issues. It seems like a large list, but could be resolvable in the timeframe available, so I'll watch this page for your responses:
Arular is the 2005 debut album by British musician M.I.A. Originally set for a September 2004 release, the album was delayed due to sample issues. Arular was released in the United States on 22 March 2005..."
This provides the reader with everything they need to understand the score, without having to leave your article.Metacritic, which assigns a normalized rating out of 100 to reviews from mainstream critics, reported that reviews were "generally favourable", with an average score of 63 based on 38 reviews.
This is what I caught on a first pass. I'm also slightly concerned that two of the three sources I checked for clarification didn't support the statements as written. Though I do understand that it's easily done—disconnecting a cite from a statement—when chopping and changing and copyediting in preparation for FAC. Look out for others. All the best, Steve T • C 19:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC) reply