Talk:Dimmu Borgir/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: DannyMusicEditor (talk · contribs) 20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Bleeeecchhhh. Black metal. Looks like a weak article at the moment, and I'm sure I'll have to quickfail it. But I'll put some things here anyway. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 20:52, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Your assistance is greatly appreciated! Thank you. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 01:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Review

Okay, I get that the Black metal Wikiproject has only six GAs and that GAs surrounding this topic are indeed difficult. But this article fails a couple of serious points to get this promoted. Alt lys er svunnet hen, I appreciate your eagerness to get this promoted, but this isn't there yet, and I would say it'd take even an experienced Wikipedian at least a few weeks to get this done - and that's without consideration of work, family, other plans, etc.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Prose is okay-ish, I guess. The lead is very short, and everything in it should be covered in the body of the article with sources and further elaboration. More should be added, too - see the bands I gave for sourcing for help on this.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Far from it. You've at least one dead link which was bare to begin with, and I'm sure several more are as well. To fix these, use the [archive.org Wayback Machine]. (Thought I'd tell you as a first-time nominator.) The article pretends to be cited properly in many instances; other times, it more blatantly unsourced. The amount of uncited material here is enough for grounds of failure. DO NOT assume that the article is well-cited simply because there are references at the end of every paragraph! You MUST double check them if that's what you plan to do! No issues of copyvio; in fact, the article barely draws much from these sources - the most used source has 23% of the article on here. As for source reliability, it's good except for CDUniverse references. I (and any other reviewer I'm sure) would much prefer you used AllMusic for this. And I'd also like you not to capslock anything the references originally capslocked.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   This article is really, really short for a band. I mean, I get that it's hard to improve that for black metal, but please try and learn something from Antestor or Mercyful Fate if you want good black metal examples. Even the Polish version is already a GA, so provided the sources are reliable, you can take some from there! And there's no style section either, which is essential.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   It's hard to check this without adequate sourcing.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems here, but I would like to say that the nominator should contribute a LOT more during nomination period!

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   They're all licensed properly, but the third image has no real encyclopedic purpose. It should be moved and possibly be recaptioned depending on what you decide to use it for.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I'd suggest a Peer review after you look at another band article and fashion it from one of those. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 16:14, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, DannyMusicEditor. I kind of figured there would be big issues with sources and overall length, but didn't even think to look at other language articles (that Polish one looks great and I will definitely try to emulate it, along with other metal GAs). I'm going to have a few weeks now where I can do some major work in the sandbox. It'll take time for sure, but thank you for taking the time to look at the article, it's a big help. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 23:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Alt lys er svunnet hen, please, in the future if you just want a review and would expect this to fail, use Peer review instead. It may not guarantee a reviewer, but is much less inconvenient for GA reviewers to have to weed out of the nominations list.

The language articles will indicate special status at the far left of the page, a black star is a GA or RA ("recommended article", used only in Danish, Swedish and Finnish languages) and a gold star is a FA. Don't rely on these completely, though, they may be old and unsuitable nowadays, or the standards for those languages are low. (Example, even FAs in Slovak, Belarusian, Afrikaans, Aragonese, Azerbaijani, some Russian, Albanian, Galician, and other less common languages generally don't make good GAs in English.) Polish is usually fine though. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 04:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)