# Talk:In Death Reborn

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on In Death Reborn. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150713013340/http://pinsta.me/tag/ArmyofThePharaohs to http://pinsta.me/tag/ArmyofThePharaohs
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:10, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:In Death Reborn/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Tbhotch (talk · contribs) 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality (prose is clear and concise, without exceeding quotations, or spelling and grammar errors): 
There are incorrect uses of semicolons instead of commas or colons, random captalization of words, and it relies in multiple quotations.
B. MoS compliance (included, but not limited to: lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists): 
I didn't go futher than the lead, but as explained below, I recommend a GOCE.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources (it also includes an appropriate reference section): 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary (including direct quotations): 
Some sources are unreliable and others are self-published.
C. No original research: 

D. No copyright violations: 
Multiple quotations
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Example: "HipHopDX gave the album a fairly average rating of 3.5/5." and "Exclaim! gave the album a fairly positive 7/10". Both grades are the same, somehow one is positive and the other is average. Another example: "RapReviews gave the album a mediocre score of 5.5/10". This is why we don't "grade" the grades. Readers alone can determine how to take a grade.
Is it stable?
edit wars, multiple edits not related to the GAN process, etc. (this excludes blatant vandalism): 

Does it contain images (or other media) to illustrate (or support) the topic?
A. Images (and other media) are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images (and other media) are provided where possible and are relevant, with suitable captions: 
Rear cover is unneeded
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

General
two dead links; other links at risk
I was concerned about this, until I was "source: Wikipedia". Therefore, this is not a reliable source
Talking about sources, the article relies in too many WP:PRIMARYSOURCES, including YouTube, Facebook Twitter and Instagram. I can see Wordpress and Discogs as sources, which are not reliable.
Infobox
2012-2014 -> 2012–2014
Why Babygrande and Demigodz Records are written with a smaller text than Enemy?
Demigodz Records -> Demigodz
File:InDeathRebornRear.jpg fails WP:NFCC#8
Lead
"independent record label; Enemy Soil" -> incorrect use of WP:SEMICOLON
"would be releasing in 2014, Heavy Lies the Crown being released" -> The semicolon would be used here instead.
"The only member that didn't make" -> did not make
"It was later confirmed that ... On February 11, 2014, it was confirmed that" -> reword one of them
"production team consisted of producers" -> redundant
"of producers include" -> including
"of producers includ[ing] ... and including Army of the Pharaohs'...  amongst others, including new faces" -> redundant
"faces that hadn't been" -> had not
You don't need to link the members more than once in the lead
on the song 7th Ghost -> on the song "7th Ghost". Titles of songs go on quotations not italics.
"7th Ghost" but spoke -> "7th Ghost", but spoke
"spoke out saying, how he was" -> "spoke out saying how he was"
"he had a lot of personal stuff going on" -> that is jargon
"stated that there will be more of him on the LP that is due to drop in November." -> which November?
"in favour" -> this is an American subject
"The group released their second album of the year Heavy Lies the Crown on 21 October 2014. Six months after In Death Reborn." -> you already mentioned this
"US Billboard 200" -> Billboard
"US Billboard 200[13] and also topping the UK R&B albums at 33 and US Top R&B/Hip Hop Albums at 16". -> US, UK, US. Order required
Online Rap album reviewer; -> no reason to use semicolon
"Online rap album reviewer; RapReviews gave" -> "Online Rap album reviewer, RapReviews, gave"
"gave the album a mediocre score of 5.5/10" -> 5.5 is hardly "mediocre"
"fairly positive" -> POV
"Canadian Music magazine Exclaim!" -> Canadian music magazine Exclaim!
Unless it is a BLP issue, you don't need to use sources in the lead.
Main issues with the lead alone. The first paragraph is OK, it gives the reader relevant information (although some of it is irrelevant for the lead). The second paragraph is a big "Background". Most of it is not relevant here and can easily be simplified. Third paragraph is unneutral. And the lead in general fails WP:LEAD, as it does not summarizes the content.
Considering the issues I mentioned above are merely the lead, I have to quick-fail the nomination. I suggest you, first, to contact a WP:GOCE member that can help you to re-structure the article. Secondly, you can consult other WP:GA/Music articles to check how to shape the points of view and quotations. After that, you can request a WP:Good article reassessment or re-nominate it if required or if you believe this closure is an error. © Tbhotch™ (en-2.5). 01:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Before resubmitting the article, I suggest that you pare down the quotes in the "Critical reception" section; see WP:QUOTEFARM. Miniapolis 14:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
In Death Reborn

This review is transcluded from Talk:In Death Reborn/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Abryn (talk · contribs) 03:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Lead

Is it that important to mention the release of the second album?
"was received generally average-to-positive reviews" typo
I feel it would be better to mention the substance of what the critics were saying rather than their scores.
From what I understand, I do not think that you need to source information in the lead, so long as the information is present in the body and sourced there.
Edited the lead and stated the importance of why the second album is mentioned. I have added the substance of what the critics have said in the lead. Typo has been fixed. I have seen good articles with sources in the lead but if this is the case, it is no issue to remove the sources. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Pre-release

The sentence on Reef the Last Cauze is messed up; it uses a comma before the citation, but the following text reads as a second sentence.
Paraphrase quotes better, should discuss what was said rather than presenting what was said. Try to stick to only the most important information whenever possible.
Inconsistent date formatting
Put AOTP in parenthesis after Army of the Pharaohs if you use abbreviation later on in the article. Make sure to also be consistent with whether it's abbreviated or not. Valid to reintroduce the full term later on in the article, but certainly should not alternate in such a short span.
I have edited these errors mentioned above. Fixed the sentence, reduced the chunks of quotes and paraphrased them, made the dates consistent and AOTP parenthesis in place. TwinTurbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Images

The back cover has the same rationale as the front, and the lack of anything other than text seems like it should just be removed entirely.
Frozen Memory cover art uses an invalid fair use rationale, as it identifies itself as the primary image for the article at the top of the article. It also needs a full rationale, no "n.a."
Removed the back cover, added the alternative cover instead, Frozen Memory cover art has beenremoved TwinTurbo (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The alt cover needs a different rationale than the main infobox cover.
Addeed a different rationale to the Alternative Cover TwinTurbo (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
As it were, the rationale needs to be pretty strong I think to do a second cover in the infobox. Being that they are so similar, it seems that the article could suffice without it.
I've just removed it.
Critical reception

No need to hyphenate "generally-positive reviews" as being an ly implies that the words are related.
I'm highly concerned about how few sources are used in this section, and how much quoting is done. That level of quoting is dangerously close to being plagiarism and should be paraphrased to give us the basic details of what the sources said.
Paraphrased the entire section and fixed the hyphen. As with the sources, would be right to add more in terms of reviews? As each paragraph looks at a review from an individual source. TwinTurbo (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
More sources would be good. I'm also just a bit concerned that the section is overly wordy. Feels like you could pare what the reviewers said by a lot. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have added four sources into the section. Pared down the quotes as suggested by Miniapolis  but I think that the information as of now is useful enough to keep. I have paraphrased it, is this not enough to suffice?TwinTurbo (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
My main concern is stuff like this: "explosive neck-shredder that feels like the punch in the face the record needs after 15 minutes of predictable, water-treading hip hop." It feels like the kind of stuff that could be cut down.
@TwinTurbo: Once the Reception has better paraphrasing, I would be able to pass the article. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 17:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Paraphrased the CR section including the metaphoric description "explosive neck-shredder" and "late-album killer" amongst others.TwinTurbo (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)