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)

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

Style

• 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.

Coverage

• 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

Illustration

• 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

Verifiability

• 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

Stability

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

Neutrality

• Not enough substantive content to really have bias

Copyright

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

Overall

• 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)