Talk:Mezzamorphis/GA1

GA Reassessment

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
This article is undergoing a Good Article Reassessment as part of the Good Article sweeps. Looking through the article, I had a few concerns:

Lead section

1. The second sentence is a little awkward. Could we rephrase it as "Released in 1999, it represented a large step towards a more electronic and mainstream sound for the band and received a largely positive critical reception."?
2. "Mezzamorphis spawned two UK singles, "See the Star" and "It's OK", both of which landed in the top 20 of the UK Singles Charts, whilst the album itself peaked at number 25 on the UK Album Charts, giving Delirious? their second top 30 album in a row." - could we split this into two sentences after "UK Singles Charts"?
3. "gone silver" reads as jargon. Could it be "was certified silver"?

Recording and production

1. "King of Fools" should be italicized.
2. Who is Martin Smith? Perhaps "In the words of front man Martin Smith"?
3. Wikilink reverbs.

Content

1. Is a reference available for the end of the first paragraph?
2. "the fact that out in the world, although everybody wants to be their own selves, we're pulled this way and that. Everyone you meet wants you to be something or another. The song asks God to help us to be our own true selves, as God sees us, not the way folk pressure us to be what they want us to be." - where is this quotation from? Can a name be given?

Promotion, reception, and response

1. The hyphen after "two in the indies" should be an em-dash (replace it with "—" without the quotation marks).
2. Did Radio One give a reason for not playing their music?
3. Can "Virgin" have a wikilink?

Chart success

1. This could be the most difficult issue. Can references be provided for each of the chart positions?

• Most of the references were actually easy to find. The only one that needs referencing still is the US Christian Radio chart, since I couldn't find any mention of it. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Those came from Powell. I tagged them. I also may be able to find more specific data in CCM Update. I'll look in a few days.

Images

1. The main infobox image should use a non-free use rationale template like the one for the alternative cover.

References

1. Several references are missing access dates. These are important but won't prevent the article from being kept as a Good Article.
2. For Reference #3 ("View from the Dressing Room"), can a page number or link to the article be provided?

Overall, the article is quite good and just needs a bit of work. I will place it on hold for one week to see how much progress can be made in that time. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm definitely disappointed that it has come to this, but there is simply no interest at present in making the (relatively minor) fixes required to bring this up to GA standards. I hope that, in the future, someone comes across this review and is able to use it as a checklist to make a few fixes before nominating it again at WP:GAN. At present, though, I am delisting the article. GaryColemanFan (talk) 18:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)