Talk:Paranoid Android/GA1

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

GA Review

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

Background

"The song was originally over 14 minutes long," Why was it cut down to six minutes?

The only motivation members of the band have mentioned is already in the article; they wanted to make different unrelated parts work together in a song and they were inspired by the Beatles' editing technique.

That says why the song was six-and-a-half minutes long, rather than why they thought about a 14-minute long song, but then cut it down. Peanut4 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editing thing does say why they cut it down. Other than that no information is available for why they chose to start with a 14 minute version and then edit it down anyway, so there isn't any way to expand it to add a reason that hasn't been given. Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I was going to jokingly answer with "because it was 14 minutes!" but yeah, I basically agree with BLZ. I'll take another look at the sources but I don't recall reading anywhere why they did it — just that they did it. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General

I can't see anywhere when the single was actually released.

Done

How about anything about the CD cover art at all?

Done

Very nice. Well done. Peanut4 (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive! :) Just for the record, is that stuff written in ALL CAPS on the actual CD cover? Even if it is, I don't think we should replicate that here as it makes it a bit hard to read. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is presented in glorious all-caps-vision on the record, but I'll go ahead and change it. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only a couple of things, but I'll put it on hold. Peanut4 (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Meets all the GA criteria. Would be good to find anything on the point above, but it might be just a trivial matter not worthy of further clarification. A very good read overall. I just noticed it was a Alternative Music collaboration of the week, but a lot of good work has gone into it. If you were to push onto FAC, my only suggestion would be to get a peer review but it might not be that you will get much from that if it was a collaboration of the week effort. Otherwise, perhaps another image might help, but I can't make any other suggestions to help. Best of luck with any future work. Peanut4 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. I've been looking around for free imagery and have only found slim pickings — I doubt that video would be useful, and the other images are really far away from the camera so barely show anything. Giggy (talk) 23:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]