# Talk:Electric Mud

I love how this article strongly subscribes to a NPOV. And the source citations are indeed bountiful as well. 
Could someone please clean up this article to be a little less critical in tone or at least add some sources for the claims? I mean, when you're throwing around words like "travesty", "debacle". and "commercial sell-out", it really does merit at least a single source, right?
" In an attempt to capitalize on this new popularity, producer Marshall Chess (son of label founder and owner Leonard Chess) convinced Waters to move away from the traditional acoustic and blues styles" This article makes this album seem far too much of a sell-out to the mood of the times. Muddy Waters' "traditional blues" hadnt been doing well at this point in his career and, I think, this album was crucial in getting him some success and recognition at the time. The article is far too critical of the album. Could someone with some more knowledge than me correct it and provide a more balanced opinion? SIGURD42 11:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
This article is historically rather inaccurate. Although Electric Mud was criterzed by "blues purists" it had high aclaim from many critics. Many considered it ahead of its time and it recieved a rather unique and diverse following. However, in terms of albums sold the album was only moderately successfull.

Cleaned up the article. Added production information from stronger sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

This review is transcluded from Talk:Electric Mud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.


### Checking against GA criteria
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
WEll written, complies with MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
Well researched, a good range of reliable sources, assume good faith for off-line sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Sufficient detail - I don't suppose that there are figures for subsequent sales. It is still available I see (not necessary for GA status, but might be a useful area to explore for slight expansion).
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): 
One non free image with correct rationale
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 
Excellent, I remember this album, I shall go and get a copy. I am happy to pass this as a Good Article. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)