Talk:Jeff Buckley/GA2

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Lobo512 (talk · contribs) 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I love Jeff Buckley, I have to claim this one. I've read half the article and scanned over the rest. It is very well referenced, but the prose is awkward at times. I hope the nominator will be willing to work on the prose. I would definitely like to see this article get to GA status. Also note that we have a "citation needed" tag in the instruments section: a lot of this stuff seems to be covered by the single citation at the end, but it doesn't mention (unless I'm being blind) the "other instruments". Do you have a reference at hand, that you can source this to?

Links

Ref 7 (500 greatest albums of all time) is currently not linking to the right page. Ref 85 also appears to be a duplicate of this, so when you find a new link please combine them into one ref (using "ref name").
Ref 74 (100 greatest songs) is dead.
Ref 105 (River's Edge) is not linking to the right page.
Ref 117 (Rufus Wainwright: Want Two) isn't linking to the right page
Ref 113 (Truth-flash) is dead.
Ref 118 (Bite your tongue) doesn't link to the article.
Ref 126 (What is The Fall In Light Foundation Inc.?) is dead
Ref 116 (PJ Harvey) doesn't link to the article
Ref 122 (The 2007 10th Annual Jeff Buckley Tribute) says nothing about Jeff Buckley (and doesn't appear to be a high quality source either)
Ref 125 (10th Annual Chicago Tribute) is dead
Ref 134 (100 greatest singers) is dead
EL "Biography from Jeff Buckley.com" is dead.

Oh dear. So we have a lot of issues with dead links that need to be fixed. You'll either need to find other reliable sources that say the same thing, or you can see if the Way Back When Machine has them archived.

If these issues can be fixed, and there's someone willing to work at the prose (ie, I'll post sentences that are awkward and then they can be re-written), then I will proceed with a full review. I would also like to see the "Tributes" section rewritten into a paragraph, rather than WP:Proseline, which it is right now. I imagine not all of these tributes are notable enough to be included, maybe just cut it down to the significant ones. --Lobo (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I just noticed that someone left a comment on the talk page questioning the lack of discussion on his voice. This is a very good point. I'm starting to wonder if this nomination was a bit premature. There does, really, need to be a section on this to satisfy the broadness criteria. What would be good is an "Artistry" section, which talks about his voice, songwriting (he wrote beautiful lyrics) and the instruments he used (in prose, not a list). Also, we have very little about his personal life right now..? I'll give you a chance to respond, but I'm afraid the article may need a fair bit of work to meet the GA criteria. --Lobo (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues in your initial review were already resolved before Snoop God reverted the article to its "good version". I will try to put together a section on his musicianship. SFB 20:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes I see, the legacy and instruments sections look much better now. That was a rather strange decision by Snoop God. We do still have quite a few link problems though, please see the tool here and fix accordingly (I'm fairly sure all the Rolling Stone ones have just been relocated to a different link, they wouldn't take them off the site completely...at least I seriously hope not, there would be no logic in that). How long do you think you'll need to put together an artistry section? If it's going to take a week or two then it may just be better to close this review for now and then renominate when you are ready (and I'll happily take up the review then)..? By the way, I saw your comment on the talk page and I completely agree that the American Idol/X Factor incidents are worth mentioning. Just maybe not in their own subheading. Or the subheading could be renamed "2008 resurgence" or something like that. --Lobo (talk) 20:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to fail this GA. Alongside the problems mentioned above, there is clearly a conflict of interest between two of the main editors. The page has been reverted (to a very different version) twice in the last 36 hours, and there has been arguing on the talk page. This means the page is not stable, one of the main GA criteria. Please re-nominate again when you have sorted out your disagreement. I'd also recommend improving the quality of the sources (too much reliance on jeffbuckley.com), and possibly sending it to peer review to help smooth out the prose. --Lobo (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]