Talk:Alternative rock/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) 17:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose):

   b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):

   • All on-line references are live, although refs #11, #25, #33, #34, #37, are redirected to different URLs and should be checked and replaced as necessary.  Done A number of statements are unreferenced. I have placed citation needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   b (citations to reliable sources):

   • All seem OK, refs #17 & #18 should be formatted using Template:cite news for consistency. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

   c (OR):

3. It is broad in its scope.

   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.:

   • No edit warring, active reversions of vandalism and additions of inappropriate material. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

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:

   • Just a number of un-supported statements. On hold for these to be fixed, notifying major contributors and projects. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
   • OK, this has been comprehensively re-written and is much improved for it. I am happy to confirmthe GA status of this artcile now. Thanks for all of your hard work. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Clarified some citations. Removed some unsourced items. Left some unsourced item I'm reasonably sure I can source. Will get to those within the next few days. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, it's likely I'm missing something, but only one of the citations you listed as being redirect appears to have been one (I have fixed it). If you can clarify or even fix it, I would appreciate that. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I used CheckLinks, if you look at the url when you get to the article you will see that it has changed from the original url, newspapers do this all the time. Look at The Guardian for instance. Its not neccessarily a big deal, but it does help preserve the url for a longer period of time. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

All links fixed now. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

But we still have a lack of references in the other countries section. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

(serendipitous edit conflict) This weekend looks busy for me, but I'll try and get everything else done soon. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No probs, I'll look in next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Currently doing a revamp of a large portion of the article in my userspace (something I had planned on doing anyway, but never got around to). This will take a few days. All unsourced material will be weeded out by then. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, no worries - Jezhotwells (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• "known primarily in the UK as indie" - err what? No it isn't! Post-punk revival is considered to be a genre of indie rock and not of alternative rock but apart from that I think the terms are the same? rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the Simon Reynolds cite explaining this, have you ever talked to more longer-in-the-tooth music fans from the UK? The phrase "alternative rock" baffles most of them, but if you say "indie" then they get what you're saying, because that was the phrase used all the time in the eighties. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• It has now been three weeks. I am inclined to de-list this article at present as it is obviously taking some time address concerns. This is not the end of the world for the article and not a slight on the contributing editors, and will enable more time for concerns to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm almost done with my rewrite. Give me one more day. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll look back on Thursday or Friday. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)