Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Toil/1
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • Most recent review
- Result: Kept, as all of the issues were successfully addressed. — Retrohead (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
- Issues that need to be adressed
- Add songs' duration in "Track listing"
- What makes AMP Magazine a reliable source?
- You need to mention the reviewer's name in the reception.
- The majority of the album's track are not discussed at the "Writing and composition" section.
- It seems that the information in the backgound is not well researched, but since I don't know the band well enough, I'll let others comment on that.
- It is not recommended to have cites in the infobox and lead if the information is already mentioned in the article's body.
- I will address each point individually
- Not in the GA criteria but
Done anyway - AMP was a magazine that was in print from 1997 until 2013; it had a editorial board and such. In March of 2013, the editor-in-chief decided to shut the magazine down due to financial problems.
- While you may want this, no policy says this needs to happen. Even if this was in some part of the MOS, GAs are only bound to are lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation
- I am working on this.
- This is all that existed as of the writing of this GA in 2013. I will look around some more.
- If info is likely to be challenged, it needs to be cited per WP:GA?
Hello Guerillero. Regarding the reassessment, great work so far on the article. Just one more thing. Can you mention who was the Christian reviewer (tagged with "who")? And can you mention some of the names of the reviewers in the reception? For example, who was the other reviewer who called the song a "crowd favorite"? The reviews in the box should be arranged in alphabetical order. Fixing these and the article is a definite stay. Great writing skills.--Retrohead (talk) 08:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)