Talk:Jape (band)/GA1

GA Review

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   • This is a brightly written, well-balanced article, I have corrected a couple of minor grammatical errors and inserted line breaks in the infobox rather than backslashes. It conforms to the WP:MOS guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   • References are all to live websites, References #1, #13, #21, #22, #25, #34, #35 and #38 are to a subscription only site. Please provide quotes from this site in the citation or an alternative source. Reference #6 is self published and probably unnecessary. References #17 and #19 are to a forum which is not a WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment from article creator, expander and nominator. Reference #17 is from a magazine and reference #19 is from a radio station. I had included links to their long-standing Wikipedia articles which should verify that. --candle•wicke 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, as the original #6 was removed those references are now #16 and #18 respectively. thumped dot com does not meet WP:RS. I expect you could drop #16 as #17 supports it. and maybe find a new source for 18. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly is wrong with thumped dot com? It seems to deliver musical information in a news format? --candle•wicke 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

thumped.dot.com is a forum, please read [1]. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure? I'm not familiar with the site but I've had opinions expressed to me before that sources such as Hot Press or even The Irish Times are inappropriate due to them having blog sections, etc. which is quite frankly ludicrous. I just want to be sure that you are certain that it is not more than a forum? --candle•wicke 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the disputed references. --candle•wicke 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I looks like a forum, has no statement of editorial policy, or indded of owenetrship, hense it is not a WP:RS. Bets left out as you have done. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed your subscription only concerns. Some of the links to that site do not in fact require a subscription so the "only" bit is incorrect. For those which were inaccessible I provided the quotes requested. A number of references also have one or two back-up sources, particularly those in the "Awards" section, so the necessary information may be found in those. Thank you. --candle•wicke 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have moved the blocked quotes from the format as it was a bit clumsy. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its scope.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   • I am satisfied that the article meets the above criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   • I am satisfied that the article adheres to a WP:NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   • I see no evidence of edit warring. The artcile is stable. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

4. 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):

   • One public domain photograph is used which meets the above criteria. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   • If the concerns mentioned in the reference section can be addressed, then I see no problems with passing this. On hold until then. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

   Now that the refernce problem is fixed I will pass this. Of course there will be other ways this artcile can be imrpoved in the future. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

   Woohoo! --candle•wicke 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)