GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this sitting in the queue for ages, and it's a shame nobody else has looked at it, so I'm up for reviewing it

Lead

Comments on the body coming later. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formation and early years: 1969–79

More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainstream success and superstardom: 1980–85

More later Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Continued success: 1986–2002

More in a mo Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell tour and reunion: 2003–present

More soon Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Musical style and influences

Number one singles

Awards

Legacy

Band members

Images

Summary

Response[edit]

Hey there! Thanks for the review…it’d been so long I’d forgotten I’d nominated this. Any who, let’s get to a few notes. I’ve implemented almost all suggestions, but:

Alright, that's it. Let me know if you need much else! Thanks again. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 06:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that all looks reasonable to me. I generally don't expect a nominator to agree with all of my comments, and as long as they can give reasonable argument against them (as you have), then that's fine. The only outstanding point I think is the "Awards" section. I'm not particularly against specific awards being mentioned here, but the GA criteria state articles must comply to the list-incorporation guidelines, so rather than a straight list, put the most notable awards into prose (with sources). That should resolve this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Saginaw-hitchhiker: I think there were only a few things outstanding to do on this. I've gone in and fixed them myself (mainly just tidying up citations and ensuring that everything is verifiable). The other thing is I'm not sure you can keep the previous non-free image of the band. I appreciate that it contains a lineup that has split, but I don't believe that's a valid fair-use rationale unless one of them dies, as all four could reform (however unlikely they think that will be) and somebody could take a free photo then.
Anyway, in the meantime, all issues have been reasonably resolved, so I can now pass the review. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 22:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]