462:. (I go into more detail below.) For example, I'm not sure where the band stayed while recording their first album is important. I'd bet that you could cut a substantial part of the article by going through it and removing content that can't be backed up with the most reliable of sources. I'm not familiar enough with the subject to make that decision myself, so I'll leave that editorial decision up to you. There are times when every single sentence in a paragraph has a source, no matter how obscure.
407:
368:
296:
249:
138:
342:
320:
227:
197:
121:
436:
210:
572:
I am chagrined, sir! Yah, I forgot about this, with all the other irons I got goin' and the holidays and all kinds of lame excuses. I promised that with the changes that Noj r made, most important being the edits to the references I requested, I'd pass this article to GA. Which I will, right now.
473:
Regarding my feedback about the "importance" of this band: There seems to be a huge amount of information out there about
Project 86, which could negate my opinion. I realize that I'm an old fuddy-duddy, and my musical tastes don't go about in these circles, so if you disagree and can cite reasons
465:
Let me explain why I have an issue with the sources formatting. When I was checking the sources, I had to navigate to the appropriate item in the "Notes" section; then I had to scroll down to the "References" section, find it in the list, and click. That's not very user-friendly. One source,
491:
I would like to request that the review remain open for an extended amount of time. I am in the middle of finals week at school and need to devote time to study. I did not believe the review would fall on this week, but it did. I will address the issues sometime next week. Thank you for your
364:
A. A little light on the images. I admit that image review is not my strong point, but for the length of this article, I wonder if there should be more. How about album cover images? The image in the infobox is kind of worthless; it fails to show the band members clearly. I wonder if the
453:
I've already insinuated this above, but I wonder about the length of this article. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I wonder if a relatively unknown band like this warrants a 53-kb long article. They're interesting, but please remember that a too-long article is harder to read.
160:
I found a few more instances of it. Please go through the article one more time, even if you use the "find" feature in your web browser. I was just going to do it myself, but I'll let you do it, so that you can decide which quotes are logical and which are
457:
Related to this article's length is its over-sourcing. As I state above, the "Notes" and "References" sections are set-up differently than what I've seen. The standard citation format and templates are here:
83:
Hello, I will be reviewing this article. I've never heard of this band, but not knowing anything about a subject has never stopped me from a good GA review in the past. I'm looking forward to learning more.
379:
I still have issue with the images, especially the one in the infobox. I'll assume good faith, though, and let it slide. You can bet this issue will become more important if you bring this article to FAC.
466:"Dillon" wasn't in the "References" section. I strongly suggest changing the format. If you want to keep it, I recommend linking the note to the entry in "References", like what's done in
573:
I do have one question, just for curiosity sake: What happened to the offer regarding images? At any rate, I apologize and thank you for lighting the fire under my substantial arse. ;) --
508:
Well, that's a horrible excuse! ;) No, please, take your time. I'm an old lady, but I do remember what it was like. My college roommate and I used to celebrate the end of finals with
143:
For the most part, this article is compliant. Please go through and check the punctuation. The only glaring problem is that quotation style isn't consistent. Knowledge uses
365:
promotional photo of the band is actually free use. We need to get another opinion about this, although I'd probably let it slide for the sake of this review:
538:
What's the status on this? Looks like some progress has been made in making the changes, just making sure you two didn't forget about this.
126:
Adequate prose, good enough for a GA. If you want to go further, though, I suggest that you have a fresh pair of eyes give it a copyedit.
66:
99:
549:
474:
why, please feel free to disregard it. Good attempt, and I'm sure with some edits and cuts, this article will go easily to GA. --
62:
221:
47:
39:
578:
521:
479:
385:
276:
166:
89:
232:
It feels really funny to say this, but I wonder if this article isn't over-sourced. I explain what I mean below.
132:
187:
574:
517:
475:
381:
272:
162:
85:
357:
215:
The current format of the sources is unwieldy and difficult to navigate. See section below.
497:
103:
55:
17:
539:
513:
310:
401:
459:
144:
467:
493:
32:
416:
in the Torres caption is a bit stilted. Perhaps a better version would be,
147:, and it needs to be done in this article every time a quotation is used.
582:
555:
525:
501:
483:
389:
280:
170:
93:
509:
412:
Slight re-wording could improve the captions a bit. For example,
268:
254:
For the length of the article (53 kb), the lead is too short.
400:
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with
470:. That's a good model for articles about bands, anyway.
74:
43:
207:B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
271:, the lead needs to be one paragraph longer. --
418:Bassist Stephen Dail is seen in the background
8:
414:Bassist Stephen Dail plays in the distance.
7:
317:Fair representation without bias:
301:There may be too much information.
209:
24:
434:
405:
366:
340:
318:
294:
247:
225:
208:
195:
136:
119:
435:
1:
512:and our bi-yearly viewing of
484:23:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
390:13:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
281:13:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
202:Very well researched article.
171:13:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
94:18:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
526:21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
516:. Ah, the good old days! --
502:20:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
406:
367:
341:
319:
295:
248:
226:
196:
137:
120:
583:06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
556:02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
605:
194:A. References to sources:
361:to illustrate the topic?
420:or something like that.
113:reasonably well written
325:Appears to be neutral.
241:broad in its coverage
222:No original research
339:No edit wars, etc:
551:Operation Big Bear
246:A. Major aspects:
183:factually accurate
118:A. Prose quality:
402:suitable captions
145:logical quotation
596:
552:
546:
449:General comments
438:
437:
409:
408:
370:
369:
344:
343:
322:
321:
298:
297:
251:
250:
229:
228:
212:
211:
199:
198:
140:
139:
123:
122:
79:
70:
51:
604:
603:
599:
598:
597:
595:
594:
593:
554:
550:
540:
451:
60:
37:
31:
29:
22:
21:
20:
18:Talk:Project 86
12:
11:
5:
602:
600:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
585:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
548:
531:
530:
529:
528:
514:Princess Bride
505:
504:
450:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
433:Pass or Fail:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
395:
394:
393:
392:
374:
373:
372:
371:
352:
351:
350:
349:
348:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
306:
305:
304:
303:
302:
288:
287:
286:
285:
284:
283:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
237:
236:
235:
234:
233:
218:
217:
216:
205:
204:
203:
178:
177:
176:
175:
174:
173:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
148:
129:
128:
127:
80:
28:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
601:
584:
580:
576:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
557:
553:
547:
545:
544:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
527:
523:
519:
515:
511:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
492:patience. --
490:
489:
488:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
471:
469:
463:
461:
455:
448:
440:
439:
432:
431:
429:
426:
419:
415:
411:
410:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
391:
387:
383:
378:
377:
376:
375:
363:
362:
360:
359:
353:
346:
345:
338:
337:
335:
331:
324:
323:
316:
315:
313:
312:
307:
300:
299:
292:
291:
290:
289:
282:
278:
274:
270:
267:According to
266:
265:
264:
263:
262:
261:
253:
252:
245:
244:
242:
238:
231:
230:
223:
219:
214:
213:
206:
201:
200:
193:
192:
190:
189:
184:
180:
179:
172:
168:
164:
159:
158:
157:
156:
155:
154:
146:
142:
141:
134:
130:
125:
124:
117:
116:
114:
110:
109:
108:
107:
105:
102:review – see
101:
96:
95:
91:
87:
81:
78:
77:
73:
68:
64:
59:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
36:
35:
26:
19:
542:
541:
472:
464:
456:
452:
427:
417:
413:
355:
333:
309:
293:B. Focused:
240:
186:
182:
135:compliance:
112:
106:for criteria
98:
97:
82:
75:
71:
57:Article talk
56:
52:
33:
30:
468:The Beatles
347:Very stable
44:visual edit
188:verifiable
575:Christine
543:Wizardman
518:Christine
476:Christine
382:Christine
273:Christine
163:Christine
86:Christine
27:GA Review
356:contain
354:Does it
104:WP:WIAGA
428:Overall
311:neutral
67:history
48:history
34:Article
358:images
334:stable
332:Is it
308:Is it
239:Is it
181:Is it
161:not.--
111:Is it
510:pizza
494:Noj r
460:WP:CT
76:Watch
16:<
579:talk
522:talk
498:talk
480:talk
386:talk
277:talk
269:this
185:and
167:talk
90:talk
63:edit
40:edit
220:C.
133:MoS
131:B.
581:)
524:)
500:)
482:)
430::
404::
388:)
380:--
336:?
314:?
279:)
243:?
224::
191:?
169:)
115:?
100:GA
92:)
84:--
65:|
46:|
42:|
577:(
520:(
496:(
478:(
384:(
275:(
165:(
88:(
72:·
69:)
61:(
53:·
50:)
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.