# Talk:Acid Tongue

As an editor at Crawdaddy!, and to comply with COI guidelines, I am not posting the link to this review of Jenny Lewis' Acid Tongue. However, I would like to recommend it on its merits, and hope that an editor will find the time to examine the review and—if he or she sees fit—post it to the professional reviews section. I appreciate your time. Crawdaddy! (mixed) [1]Mike harkin (talk) 16:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Where did the songwriting credits come from? They're not on the album... Richaod (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Acid Tongue/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: S Masters (talk) 07:40, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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): 
References appear to be in order.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 
Article complies with WP:NPOV.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 
Article appears to be stable.
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): 
Images comply with fair use requirements.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Comments:

The lead is too short for an article of this size, see WP:LEAD for more information. Bear in mind that:
The lead should adequately summarize the content of the article. (GA criteria)
There should not be anything in the lead not mentioned in the rest of the article. (GA criteria)
In the "Release" section, there are three single sentences. This is not desirable. Try to have them in paragraphs.
Only for numbers that refer to charting figures, the numbers should be written out and not in figures. E.g. The album was made number 14... - should be fourteen.
In the tables, references should be in the first column and not at the chart number.
The personnel list should be in two columns.
Summary: The article has minor issues as set out above. I will allow up to seven days for these issues to be resolved, before making any further decision.

Thanks for all the fixes. Good job! Just one more thing and the article can pass. In the professional ratings table, the references need to be at the Source and not at the Ratings. -- S Masters (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Fixed! Thank you so much for your help and time! -- XL XR2 (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Final comments: Thank you for all your work in making this a better article. I am confident that it now meets all the requirements for a Good Article and I am happy to list it as one. Well done! - S Masters (talk) 04:45, 25 April 2010 (UTC)