Talk:Gwerz Skolan

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gwerz Skolan/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs) 13:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment[edit]

  1. Comprehension: The article is well written.
    2. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Concise and clear prose, no issues with spelling or grammar. Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) The article is mostly complaint with the manual of style. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiability: The article is verifiable.
    3. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) The article has a list of references. Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) There are inline citations for the body but some sources may not be reliable. (Resolved) Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) No major issues with original research was found, excluding one. (Resolved) Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyright issues found, the translation of the gwerz is from 1868. Pass Pass
  3. Comprehensiveness: The article is adequately comprehensive.
    4. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) The article may be missing some major aspects. (Resolved) Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) The article remains on topic. Pass Pass
  4. Neutrality: The article is neutral.
    5. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No issues with the policy on neutral point of view were found. Pass Pass
  5. Stability: The article is stable.
    6. Pass Pass
    Notes Result
    No edit warring, content disputes or major changes. Pass Pass
  6. Illustration: The article has adequate illustration.
    7. Pass Pass
    Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) not applicable Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) not applicable Pass Pass

Comments[edit]

  • Hello, I'll be the one taking up the review of this article which I'll present shortly. Hopefully, my feedback will be useful and I'll learn something new from it. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 9 appears to link to a website called maryjones.us, with a sub-page called Celtic Literature Collective. The home page of the website gives the impression that it is a blog?
  • I haven't been able to check Defrance and Laurent as both are French articles on JSTOR. Seeing as there isn't any major issues with original research, I'm going to assume, they have been accurately represented in the article.
  • Kemener 2009 is cited to a line which states that Marie-Josèphe Bertrand's version was released on CD in the 2010s. This isn't verifiable. The line also states that this version is considered a classic, which is not explicitly stated at least in the google translation. The source does gives an implication that it is an classic, may be something was lost in translation? The primary issue with it however is that it is a blog by Kemener and I'm unsure if that can be considered to be reliable. Kemener himself is a traditional singer but would that make him a subject matter expert on the topic of history of traditional music?
  • Reference 14 should be two separate citations. In general, I'd also suggest converting the citations to Template:sfn so that it links directly to the references.
  • With regards to, "in lines 184-189". It would be more meaningful to mention the context in which the book is referred to instead of the lines.
  • The article mentions a number of version but there contains no information on the variation between the versions. Could this be expanded upon?
  • Drmies, sorry for the late review. The article is mostly complaint with respect to the good article criteria but there are some possible issues with the article. In the assessment table above, I've highlighted the areas in which the article may need improvements and the specific issues in the comments. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Tayi Arajakate, no need to apologize; thanks for the review. I'm working on it, so let me tell you how far I am.

      The website from note 9, it was authoritative enough for me since it simply presented Skene in an easy, clickable format. I have, however, changed the reference to go to Skene directly.

      Ha, your second point, I hope I represented them fairly, and I am going back to them again anyway (see below) and will double-check.

      Kemener 2009, I changed the text a bit: "classic" was a bit of interpretation, and I changed it to stay closer to the text, giving a few details. But Kemener's expertise is real, and the French article does a better job of proving that: he's not just a singer, he's also a published ethnomusicologist, and I accept his expertise.

      I separated the two references, but I want to point out that having two references in one note is pretty widely accepted. As for sfn, I do not use that myself, at all, but if you insist I will change it.

      "in lines 184-189"--I've changed that bit around, and provided content/context.

      Now, I find that my own content is a bit thin, and I'm going back to the well (especially Laurent) to write up a bit more, esp. about the different versions. I'll get on it, and I'll ping you soon when I feel more comfortable with that section. Thanks again! Drmies (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

      • The reference style was just a suggestion, I'm not insisting. I just think it makes it easier to follow which reference is being used. Kemener appears to be a subject matter expert in that case and the reference issues are resolved, so I'll wait for your ping. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • One minor thing, shouldn't Mazéasher be Mazéas? Makes it appear like two different people otherwise. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • User:Tayi Arajakate, I've expanded the text a bit. Please see what you think. And I changed to sfn style, though two of the citations don't appear properly--there's no author for those entries. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, I've read through the expansion and it looks alright. I'm passing it as it pretty much fulfills the criteria. The prose can be polished a bit though, I think there a couple minor issues in this regard.

  • "a consistently elevated tone", it's bit confusing whether it means that the tone is constant elevated one or one that gets progressively elevated.
  • Most of the sections consist of a single large paragraph, some of them could be split.
  • There is a bit of an overuse of commas, in places they need not be used. Some of them seem a bit unnecessary and can be outright omitted.
  • Lastly, I've a question with regards to sourcing. Is Laurent the only in depth source for the gwerz? Otherwise, there is not much material about the Welsh tradition in the article.

Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gwerz_Skolan&oldid=1199999950"