Talk:Anaal Nathrakh/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Kingsif (talk · contribs) 07:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'll be reviewing this, full review should be added soon! Kingsif (talk) 07:25, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead good length for article.
Band member list may look better in columns.
If we have Dave Hunt linked, do we need the full explanation of his alias? The alias, sure, but the sentence?
Probably would be good to have some of the albums mentioned in lead.
Musical style is a list of blue links, which isn't good.
If going to say the AV club says "still hasn't been met" in reference to an album almost two decades old, please tell us when the statement was made.
- This sentence has poor grammar and structure and should be split or rephrased, too.
- Perhaps appropriate to have some discussion of their contributions to the blackened death genre?
First paragraph of History is just a list of album releases.
Second paragraph is almost entirely a quote of what sounds like a press release statement.
Third and fourth are lists of album releases again.
And that section is the entire prose of the article: one-section article.
Fail Doesn't meet the quality standards of a GA. Lack of prose, all of which would benefit from being rewritten, though only some of it for grammatical reasons.

History doesn't even mention formation or one member leaving.
Not even brief discussion of their many albums (beyond 'was released'), which is expected.
Musical style should be tighter explained and attributed.
No positioning of the band, which is a niche genre, within that niche genre
Only one section of prose, most of which is a running tally of the album list, the rest is a long quote.
Fail Some major gaps in coverage

Ideally, the logo image will be in the infobox. The band members' images can then be sized down a bit and should fit on the left of the article.
As the band members is a simple long list, it may look better divided into columns.
There might also be a better way to format Discography.
Fail messy-looking and defies WP standards of image organization

Uses several sources that are Wikipedia mirrors, which could be circular referencing.
Uses blabbermouth, which seems to be a self-publishing site.
Rough citation style for Musical style section
No refs for band member lists.
Fail missing sources and use of non-RS

Content dispute on 1 September.
Fail though no activity since, it was close to an edit war between two main editors

Check - the big numbers are WP mirrors, one phrase does appear to be copied from a blabbermouth article, though.

There isn't much content and what's there is neither quality nor referenced to a quality source. There also appears to be an unresolved content dispute that started this month. This would probably just about make C-class if I were reviewing it, by virtue of having a ref attached to everything. Kingsif (talk) 07:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]