Jump to content

Talk:Grant Park Music Festival/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Adabow (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. 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):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
Comments

Some issues, I have described them by criterion and section, specifying which paragraph in the section the issue occurs.

Well written

[edit]
Prose

Some minor capitalisation and spelling problems

MoS

Pretty good, however the infobox uses contains hyphens, and should instead contain spaced en dashes, and there are some dab links to fix

Accurate/verifiable

[edit]
References

No major issues

Reliable sources

Citation 6 is dead—try to find an archived copy or a replacement reference

Original research

No major issues

Coverage

[edit]
Broad coverage

Detailed on history, funding and performances. Is there enough material to create a section on public reception or popularity?

Focused

The 'performances' section is quite detailed. I am supposing that the festival is set to continue in the future, and this section could become quite large. It would be good to start to write a List of Grant Park Music Festival performances, to relieve some of the pressure on this section.

  • I think that is a highly unusual list for a performing venue. What this section means to do is briefly highlight each decade. The problem may be that going foward each year gets as long of a summary as the prior decades. I am not a scholar of classical music and not qualified to winnow down each decade list to the true highlights, but I hope for help from other wikipedians in this regard.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:03, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral point of view

No major issues

Stability

No edit warring, no frequent vandalism

Images

[edit]
Image tags/copyright
Image captions

Very good captioning

Final comments

[edit]

I have placed the review on hold, and will allow seven days for the issues outlined above to be rectified. Good luck improving the article! Adabow (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have passed the article. Congratulations! Adabow (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]