Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
- Reassessment comments
- none of the referenced as properly formatted
- the article features reviews by Metal Storm and Chronicles of Chaos, which aren't listed on the WP:ALBUM/SOURCE. Further noted, the Metal Storm review is written by Demonic Tutor, which questions its reliability.
- the subject is not widely covered ("Release" section for example)
- the prose is poorly written; for example, the album's title is mentioned six times in the lead
These are the main reasons why I think the article doesn't fulfill the GA criteria at the moment.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist (if the issues are not resolved). Although it would be better to format the references correctly, this is not a GA criterion. The other problems mentioned, however, are significant. In my opinion, the article should be delisted if the problems are not fixed. – Quadell (talk) 16:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I'm not seeing significant problems such that the article should be delisted. I've tidied up the prose, though even that was not a fail, as the prose was clear and readable. GA prose standards are not the same as FA standards. As long as the prose is clear and readable without obvious spelling and grammar errors, then it's OK. A five minute copy-edit is not grounds for a delisting - rather it's an invitation to directly edit the article to improve it. Considering the scope and complexity of the topic, the coverage appears broad enough. The main issue is the quality of the sources. It's useful to consult Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard when there is doubt regarding sources; looking there I note that some of the websites have been queried before, with the general consideration that they are acceptable; example: [1]. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Metal Storm is listed as a source to avoid, so it should definitely be omitted. As for the second dubious reference, on a first looks it seems comprehensively written, so I guess it can stay. However, I noted that the article uses Amazon.com (a music retailer) and YouTube as sources. Furthermore, a significant number of the references are from the band's official website (Icedearth.com), which implies that WP:SECONDARY is not fully respected. Good articles should rely on reputable secondary sources, not on primary, which is a case in this article.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Although there is one editor who opposes delisting the article, I believe I have strong arguments to make such a move. Giving weight that the page seriously suffers from poor sourcing, it simply doesn't meet the GA criteria in its current condition.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]