Talk:Interview with the Vampire (Original Television Series Soundtrack)/GA2

GA Review[edit]

Passed. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:38, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Ganesha811 (talk · contribs) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article, using the template below. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yolo4A4Lo, FYI, due to the American holiday this week, the review may be delayed, but I will pick it back up Sunday at latest! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, take your time. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:40, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article now meets the GA standard! Congrats to you and anyone else who worked on it. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	As is my usual practice, I've made prose tweaks myself to save us both time. If there are any you object to, just let me know.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Pass, no issues. External link-box is unusual but not excessively so given the topic, and certainly relevant.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Pass, no issues.
	2b. 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).	Sources #7 and #8 (AllMusic) appear to be identical, please combine and check for other duplicated sources. Source #7 is used for the catalog number of digital release and #8 for the album release, which are different. I would like to use the main page for the album, but unfortunately, the catalog numbers aren't available there. Or do you want me to combine it with a Template:Multiref2?? What's the case for Bleeding Cool being a reliable source? I think it's reliable to support the information on the date of "Overture" being posted, or is it allowed to just cite Twitter directly? Let's keep it at Bleeding Cool! If the information from the Reddit AMA is available elsewhere, please remove it as a source - strikes me as coming closer to WP:OR. No, I have looked for other mention of this information in other sources, but unfortunately, there's none. I included it because I think it's very important information about how the actor's involvement in the soundtrack came to be. I went by "A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" from WP:PRIMARY when I added it, thus I tried to use the words as closely as I could. --Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] All sounds reasonable. I'll check the other sources but they seemed generally reliable and well-formatted on first spec. Thanks for making the arguments necessary to persuade! —Ganesha811 (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spot checks of four sources turn up no issues along those found by the first GA review - AGF and pass.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Some info sourced to Youtube video interviews, which could present a problem in some articles, but no actual issue here. Pass.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig finds nothing other than some properly attributed quotes and long song titles - hold for manual spot check. Nothing found by manual spot check. Pass.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Not finding anything else major. pass.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Nothing egregious. More detail than I would have written, but a few prose tweaks were all that was needed. Pass.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Generally positive in tone, but not out of line with reviewers comments, and opinions are properly attributed to reviewers and not given in Wikipedia's voice. Pass.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Pass, no issues on talk page, no edit wars, no major ongoing changes.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Fair use cover art, no other images, no issues. Pass.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	A free image of Daniel Hart, if available, wouldn't go amiss, but the article does not require it to meet GA standard and I'm not sure if one could be found. Pass.
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.