Talk:The Cure/GA1

GA Reassessment

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

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   I made some copy-edits, but I feel taht the prose could be improved throughout. It is rather choppy with many repeated truns of phrase that could be improved. MoS compliant. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A number of dead links which have been tagged. Ref #1 [1] is OK , but it is now 2009, could do with an update on this statistic; Ref #36 was dead but i find a replacementa t Billboard, w=howver this does not support all of the diffrenet statements referenced, due to Billboard restructuring their site; ref #45 I can't find a direct replacement for; ref #54 [2], The Brits have removed their archives, not at the Internet archive, either; ref #60 [3], I am sure you can find a better review that one on an online shopping site, not very RS;

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

OK, just a few references need fixing and the prose could do with a thorough brush up. On hold. Major contributors and projects will be informed. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC) OK, all looks fine now. Keep GA status. Thanks for your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• Dead links have been updated - although I removed the reference for the release date of 4:13 Dream as this isn't controversial and likely to be disputed. --JD554 (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

To address the cumulative sales total: these number are hard to come by and often aren't updated for years. This is the best we've got for now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've given the prose another go over, but I'm not sure I can I identify the choppiness you mention. It seems to do pretty well for readability. --JD554 (talk) 09:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sales

Time we updated sales info? Is this source reliable? http://www.shout.ru/index_thecure_e.htm Revan ltrl (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)