Talk:Ian Gillan/GA2

GA Review

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

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review #2

I am starting a review of this article. This is it's second review. I was the reviewer for its first review and, with the agreement of nominator, non-passed it due to instability, and am doing the second review with their agreement. North8000 (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussions

Under "Post-Purple" could you clarify what "including opening to the entire local village in November 1974" means? Thanks North8000 (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done This is a bit in his autobiography where, sat in a hotel he owned, and feeling bored, he decided to invite everyone in the village, whoever was around, for a party. I can pull out a specific quote, or we can just remove it as being trivia. I'm easy either way. Edit: now removed Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:52, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's unclear what the bibliography section is. It appears to be two items that were not used as references and duplication of one item that is used and fully listed as a reference elsewhere, and so its first instances is a confusing partial description of that reference. Also the "dead links" to that in the short citations add to the difficulty of figuring it out. I think renaming it moving it to being a "further reading" section and leaving off that duplicate is one way to mostly fix. I'll do that. Advise if you'd like to handle differently, but I think that some clarification is needed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what you've been trying to do with test edits to the page, the problem you've found is that when I went through and cited books, I used chapters in the book rather than specific pages or range of pages. I can go through and find the exact pages for the two book sources, but it will take some time. I just felt it wasn't particularly necessary to go to GA, as the information was verifiable, just not quite as easily. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that page numbers are needed for this to pass GA at this time. I really don't know sfn very well and was trying to learn and fix at the same time. Didn't know the cause of the issue. At worst, it just a little unusual, as the sfn (vs. simple short cites) I think is specifically for that linking. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked at the help desk and they think that it might be because different handling is needed for 2 authors. First, just checking, is it co-authored, with Gillan being one of them? North8000 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the Google Books entry. Gillan is the first author, Cohen is the second. I suspect (though it's not documented) that Gillan sat down and wrote everything he could remember about himself, and David Cohen copy-edited it to make it readable. It's a bit hard to find these days, and only goes up to 1993 (it doesn't mention Blackmore's departure, which hadn't happened yet), but it's about the best source you could have for him. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I put them both in in the sfns and that fixed it. North8000 (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the discography section, comparing it with the discography article, this does not appear to be a full discography, so it's unclear what the reader is looking at. Could you add an intro sentencs or 2 saying what it is which says what it is (e.g. "studio albums" "albums that charted" etc. ) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote here, "I've retained contemporary studio and charting live albums that were released roughly around the time they were recorded. So, Made in Japan is there, because it charted and is highly regarded by fans, but not any of the numerous live albums he's done in the last 20 years, which are, to be fair, a bit less mainstream." Do you think that's a reasonable rationale, and if not, what improvements could we make? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO it's fine. Answering your question, the suggested improvement is to (roughly speaking) take what you just said and put it in as an into in that section. I'll take a stab at it. North8000 (talk) 14:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO that minor title change I did takes care of it, if that is alright with you. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. If somebody wants to search out the bootleg-countering live albums from the 90s and 2000s, they can click on the main article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

Well-written

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Factually accurate and verifiable

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broad in its coverage

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

Meets this criteria. North8000 (talk) 19:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Meets this criteria. During the last review it was unstable. An editor who made too big of changes in proportion to discussing too-little was roto-tilling it. Long story short, looks like that is resolved. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrated, if possible, by images

Meets this criteria. Has 6 images, all are free; no use rationale required. I would suggest adding another of the band (for variety) but such is not required to pass this criteria.North8000 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done Added two more images, one from 1970 showing two other bandmates, one from 2009 showing 4/5 of them. I found a nice shot of him fronting Gillan in 1979 on Flickr, but the licence wasn't good enough for Commons. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! Updating: Meets this criteria. Has 8 images, all are free; no article-specific use rationales required. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Updating: Meets this criteria. Has 10 images, all are free; no article-specific use rationales required.North8000 (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, forgot to say I added two images that cover his non-Purple career. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article

This article passes as a Wikipedia Good Article. Congratulations and nice work! I will implement the details shortly. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC) GA Reviewer[reply]

Thanks for a good review. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]