Talk:People's Instinctive Travels and the Paths of Rhythm/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: StewdioMACK (talk · contribs) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll review this. One of my favourite albums. StewdioMACK (talk) 16:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Lead

• Can the lead be expanded a little bit? Perhaps with a quote from the legacy section?
• Nice job with what's there, though.

Recording

• Should be a comma after "Q-Tip later commented".
• "Although claiming" should be "Although claiming that".
• "Q-Tip was the only Tribe Called Quest member present". Change this to either "Q-Tip was the only group member" or "the only member of A Tribe Called Quest", I'm not sure if we should be taking the "A" off the name.
• Should be a comma after "Group member Phife Dawg later admitted" as well.

Critical reception

• The third paragraph seems more appropriate for the "Legacy" section, seeing it appears to consist entirely of retrospective reviews.
• Maybe link to here when mentioning the perfect review from The Source. Also, maybe change "perfect" to "five-mic", considering the honour is pretty well-known in the hip-hop community.
• Good paraphrasing.

Legacy and influence

• Should probably just be called "Legacy", to be consistent with other music good articles.
• One instance of "Instinctive" is not capitalised and should be.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Wish there was more pictures, but no biggie.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Conclusion

Looking good. I'd just like to see a little bit of work on the lead and some minor prose issues and then this should be good. For now I'm putting it on hold. StewdioMACK (talk) 17:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing. I've made the requested changes (however, I added a "Retrospect" heading above the third paragraph in reception). Please let me know if there's anything else. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, everything looks great now. Will be happy to ✓ Pass this. Great to see this quality album having a quality Wikipedia page. Congratulations! StewdioMACK (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Awsome. Thanks so much. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)