Hello! I'd be perfectly happy to assist you in your review of Green Day. For starters, I think that the most useful thing here would be the previous assessment done in January; it is quite thorough, and you can see a comparison between the January and current versions of the article here. Normally, a review starts with a quick skim read, checking for any major problems - the key ones to look out for are:
- The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability.
- The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.
- There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{wikify}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{fact}}, {{citation needed}}, {{clarifyme}}, or similar tags.
- The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars.
- The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint.
Point 4 requires checking the article history, whilst the rest can be done by just reading the article. I would suggest you start by checking the article against these points; once you feel the article meets these criteria, we can begin the main part of the review. If you have any questions or comments, feel free to leave them here, on my talk page, or on the article review page - weebiloobil (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- Seeing as you've noticed some problems with some references in the article already, you might want to have a look at this tool - it checks all the citations/references, and reports on whether they are working or not, saving a lot of work. I had a quick look, and there seems to be a large number of dead or redirected links in the article at the moment - weebiloobil (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would a fansite such as greendayauthority.com qualify as a RS? --Guerillero | My Talk 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- It depends how it's used. If the article says "...with the fansite greendayauthority.com reporting that...", then the source is fine; if the article quotes something as fact that's been uploaded by a fan on to the site, then probably not. As the site is a collection of news stories, there may be better sources for some of the information anyway. Because the site is run by a small number of fans with specific jobs, it seems well-organised, and probably more reliable than other Green Day fansites. Anything remotely contentious shouldn't be sourced with only this site, and any blog-like elements to the site (e.g. 'Are they going to release a new album next year?' or 'so-and-so was their best album yet') can't be used, but otherwise it can be used with caution. Reference 35 is, at the moment, broken- weebiloobil (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will Read through looking to see what is referenced by that source. Sorry it seems that I am going in a wacky order. I am trying to do the parts of the assessment that I know best the first. (Prose is far from the thing I am best at.) cheers--Guerillero | My Talk 23:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- It depends how it's used. If the article says "...with the fansite greendayauthority.com reporting that...", then the source is fine; if the article quotes something as fact that's been uploaded by a fan on to the site, then probably not. As the site is a collection of news stories, there may be better sources for some of the information anyway. Because the site is run by a small number of fans with specific jobs, it seems well-organised, and probably more reliable than other Green Day fansites. Anything remotely contentious shouldn't be sourced with only this site, and any blog-like elements to the site (e.g. 'Are they going to release a new album next year?' or 'so-and-so was their best album yet') can't be used, but otherwise it can be used with caution. Reference 35 is, at the moment, broken- weebiloobil (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
- How do you go about checking prose? --Guerillero | My Talk 17:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
- Would a fansite such as greendayauthority.com qualify as a RS? --Guerillero | My Talk 20:30, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry for ignoring you for a while, but I was suddenly called to interview at Oxford and I lost track of things a bit. I find the best thing to do when checking prose is to copy the text of the article into something like Microsoft Word, and see if there are any grammar/spelling points it doesn't like. I also read through the article very slowly, and anything that doesn't make sense initially, or I think looks wrong, I look up in a dictionary. When in doubt, you can always ask another editor to read over a bit and see what they think. I see that you have put the article on hold until after Christmas - this is, I think the best option - but when you put an article on hold you need to change the status of the article on the GA nominations template on the article talk page to 'onhold', as in {{GA nominee|...|status=onhold}}, which I have already done for you. It is now a waiting game to see how the article is improved - weebiloobil (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- No big deal. Thank you for the advice and putting it officialy on hold. I will put it through MS word and see what comes up. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 15:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Guerillo, I fixed up some stuff and left comments for you at the FAC, please come back and check it out and hopefully reconsider your oppose. Thanks!--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 04:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Season's greetings
Best wishes to you to and hope you have a happy and successful 2011. Polyamorph (talk) 12:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you --Guerillero | My Talk 16:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
License tagging for File:SuckerPunchShow(Euro).jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SuckerPunchShow(Euro).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Please see WP:NAC; non-admin closures of AfDs are only allowed under a very restricted set of circumstances, and should not be performed for "snow" closes. And in any case, there's no way a "snow" close can be evident after less than an hour of listing time. Wait for an admin to close it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:40, 8 January 2011 (UTC)