Talk:HIStory: Past, Present and Future, Book I/GA1

GA Review

edit

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

Reviewer:Chase (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for criteria)

Hi, Crystal Clear! I believe this is the second article you've nominated that I'll be reviewing. It looks good, now time to check it against the GA criteria.

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    Numerous grammatical errors throughout. There are far too many to pinpoint, but just in the lead section:
    • "A majority of the albums tracks" should be "The majority of the album's tracks"
    • "several out of fifteen songs" is awkwardly worded and should be changed to "several of the album's fifteen songs"
    • "The albums songs themes" should be "The song's themes"
    • "Jackson was accused of using anti-Semitism lyrics" should be "Jackson was accused of using antisemitic lyrics"
    • "he did not mean any offense and, on mutiple occasions" the comma should be dropped
    • "one of the albums songs" should be "one of the album's songs"
    • "both of which charted within the top five on Billboard 100" should be dropped to avoid breaking up the listing off of the singles; this can be discussed in the body of the article
    • "HIStory was generally well received by contemporary music critics" "contemporary" should be dropped; the album was released in 1995, of course reviews will be from contemporary critics
    • "HIStorys least charting territory was Italy" should be changed to "HIStory's lowest peak was in Italy"
    I have reviewed the rest of the article's prose and it contains an even larger amount of issues, which is why I have chosen to not list them all off.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    Is rockonthenet.com a reliable source? I'm not familiar with it but it looks rather dubious...
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):  
    File:MJ-HIStory.jpg is too large and needs to be reduced to at least 300x300px.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    In all other respects, the article is fine. However, I can't pass this due to the extreme amount of grammatical flaws. I suggest that you request a peer review and renominate this for GA after that. –Chase (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)Reply