![]() | Go! Pop! Bang! was nominated as a Music good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (January 18, 2013). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Go! Pop! Bang! article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why was the possible tracks part removed. It didn't say that they were confirmed tracks, it said they were POSSIBLE. On a bunch of articles for upcoming albums, it has this. It should be kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.20.50.145 ( talk) 02:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: North8000 ( talk · contribs) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am starting a Good Article review of this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
There were some pretty simple bugs in the wording that I was able to fix. Overall it is pretty well done but I find the wording in some places to be a bit towards being an insider conversation amongst people who already are immersed in this stuff rather than an article which seeks to inform those who aren't. This is just a vague overall comment at this point, requesting a closer look in this respect. North8000 ( talk) 22:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Overall, I have some concerns regarding this article. Most are related to "insider to insider" type wording, which relates to some lack of clarity/explanation. There is a lot that is "borderline" in this areas which could still (just) pass if it was only that. (And I fixed a few myself where someone like myself without expertise or handy sources is able to do so.) But not so when combined with some more clearly-at-issue areas which I noted. The would be easy to fix for someone who has been editing here, but have sat open for 10 days with no response. More time is OK, but I wanted to note this now. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Well-written
Factually accurate and verifiable
Broad in its coverage
Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each
Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute
Illustrated, if possible, by images
Reviewing the for GA, I have a few concerns, and there appears to be no editor involved. I am "repeating" this here because changes in the transcluded review do not show up on the watchlist of anyone who may be watching this article. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Go! Pop! Bang!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)