The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 20 October 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Their magnum opus, my magnum opus. Greatest album of all time. Discuss. Not about whether it is (it is!), but about whether it fulfils the FA criteria. It should after a summery labour of love from yours truly and a detailed PR, including a thorough going over by the one and only Brianboulton. So, you should know that it's more than ready. Nitpicks welcome. Cheers. RB88 ( T) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
<talk page resolved discussion moved to talk page>
Comment RB88 I can see you put a lot of work into this, but I also have to ask you for your reasoning for this caliber of jump. It seems to me that the ranks of GA and A exist for a reason, and putting this up for FA now is skipping two levels of review. This can only hurt the article. If no consensus is reached on promoting this, concider nominating it for GA, then getting it to level A. Something in this article just strikes me wrong, and it's not the subject matter. I've never heard of the band and have no opinion on it, nor is it you, I can't remember crossing paths with you before. Thoughts on the FA jump? Nezzadar ( speak) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Otherwise all good - Support. Well done. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support: I did some pretty thorough nit-picking at peer review. There is always more that can be done, but I'll leave that mainly to others. Just a few niggles that arose in my last read-through:-
Otherwise the article maintains and extends the high standards which RB88 is setting for musical articles. Excellent stuff. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support and quibbles No major problems, but Additional musicians were frequently used. The lyric writing process slowed Remain in Light's creation... read oddly. The first sentence seems almost an afterthought, with no apparent rationale, and I agree with Casliber on the lack of clarity of the second Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
RB88 ( T) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Tim meh 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Media review
These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit ( talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The article was promoted by Karanacs 21:36, 20 October 2009 [1].
Toolbox |
---|
Their magnum opus, my magnum opus. Greatest album of all time. Discuss. Not about whether it is (it is!), but about whether it fulfils the FA criteria. It should after a summery labour of love from yours truly and a detailed PR, including a thorough going over by the one and only Brianboulton. So, you should know that it's more than ready. Nitpicks welcome. Cheers. RB88 ( T) 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
<talk page resolved discussion moved to talk page>
Comment RB88 I can see you put a lot of work into this, but I also have to ask you for your reasoning for this caliber of jump. It seems to me that the ranks of GA and A exist for a reason, and putting this up for FA now is skipping two levels of review. This can only hurt the article. If no consensus is reached on promoting this, concider nominating it for GA, then getting it to level A. Something in this article just strikes me wrong, and it's not the subject matter. I've never heard of the band and have no opinion on it, nor is it you, I can't remember crossing paths with you before. Thoughts on the FA jump? Nezzadar ( speak) 18:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Otherwise all good - Support. Well done. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 11:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support: I did some pretty thorough nit-picking at peer review. There is always more that can be done, but I'll leave that mainly to others. Just a few niggles that arose in my last read-through:-
Otherwise the article maintains and extends the high standards which RB88 is setting for musical articles. Excellent stuff. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Support and quibbles No major problems, but Additional musicians were frequently used. The lyric writing process slowed Remain in Light's creation... read oddly. The first sentence seems almost an afterthought, with no apparent rationale, and I agree with Casliber on the lack of clarity of the second Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
RB88 ( T) 17:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Tim meh 21:49, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Media review
These should be relatively easy to fix. Awadewit ( talk) 18:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply