# Talk:The Sound of White

Image:Sound of white album.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 08:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:The Sound of White/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct: 
In the Background and recording section, "...she flew to LA to sign an international recording contract with Warner Bros.", it might be best to spell out "Los Angeles", or do this ---> "Los Angeles (LA)".
 Done
Check.
B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation: 

Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline: 
Reference 50 is missing an accessdate, and there's a dead link.
Check.
B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose): 

C. It contains no original research: 

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic: 

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style): 

Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each: 

Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute: 

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content: 

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Not that much to do. If the above query can be dealt with, I will pass the article. Good luck!
--  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the review and for fixing the nom - I keep forgetting that step! Just to clarify: with the mention of LA, it is spelled out already in that sentence. Do you want me to add (LA) to that first instance of the same sentence?
You're welcome for the GAN tag, just assuming good faith with it, and Nascar1996 got the LA bit. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Not sure which ref you mean that needs an access date - there's no no. 50.
That's weird, here it says number 50. I just looked in the article and it's Ref. 22.
Ah ok. That's a book and the link is just a courtesy link so doesn't need an accessdate.--BelovedFreak 18:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
The dead link is a courtesy link to an offline source, but I've commented it out for now. I was kind of hoping it would come back online. --BelovedFreak 17:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Check.
Thank you to both Nascar and Belovedfreak for getting the stuff I left at the talk page, because I have gone off and placed the article as GA. Congrats. ;) If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on The Sound of White. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20080304123324/http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=2004 to http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=2004
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110519014456/http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=2005 to http://www.ariaawards.com.au/history-by-year.php?year=2005
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081208144744/http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_H.HTM to http://www.zobbel.de/cluk/CLUK_H.HTM
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
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) 23:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)