Talk:Megitza/GA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Dr. Blofeld (talk · contribs) 15:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Will be reviewing later this evening..♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Hokay

Lead
  • Needs expansion to effectively summarize the article. Needs to mention her emigration to Chicago, her quartet and some of her most notable songs. Fixed.
  • I've listened to select extracts of her music and above all, would you not say Eastern European folk and gypsy music/gypsy jazz is a big influence? I'd primarily describe it as Romani folk/gypsy jazz/worldbeat. Fixed.
Biography

"In her early years she has won several podhale dialect reciting and art contests". -ideally this needs a citation..  Removed that, as I could not find a citation

Career

Overall definitely needs to mention some of her greatest hits chronologically and some critical commentary/background info if possible. E.g In 2003 the band released the single xxxx which reached 23 in the charts. NME praised the song's emotion and atmosphere and it was generally well received. Especially a review or two of her album is needed to give the reader an indication of its success and reception.. If you could just do that bit more research, google Megitza review etc and try to build up a stronger career section I'm not too concerned about length other than given that there doesn't appear to be much biographical information and the article quality overall is OK.

Performances
  • Debolden/link Megitza's.
  • Jay Pritzker Pavilion, incidentally which is my own FA with Tony is a venue not a festival. Milwaukee Avenue Arts Festival I think rather than Chicago Gospel Music Festival? No article for Chicago World Music Festival? (Fixed). SHould probably be linked. (Fixed)Dates/years of performances would be ideal.
References

Overall could do with some more mainstream sources if they exist, e.g Chicago Tribune/Sun, New York Times/ mainstream music magazine reviews..

  • Refs2-3 Inconsistency between publisher name one has Chicago, other doesn't, please make the same. Fixed.
  • Change Lucic to Lucid. What makes the Lucid website a RS? Fixed
  • Illinois Entertainer needs to be italicized if it is a web paper. Fixed myself
  • Ref 21 is a dead link, self published and I'm very dubious those songs actually entered the UK charts... Can you verify it? Fixed but ideally I'd like to see a source
  • Can you place all author surnames before first name and also ensure all of the dates are formatted the same way? Fixed myself.

Dr. Blofeld 17:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

This article is still by general GA standards a weak entry, but a lot of that is due to poor coverage in mainstream publications, although I believe she meets notability guidelines based on the combined coverage in all the sources. I've looked into it this evening and routed out some better sources and content which now appear to give a fairly decent overview of this artist who is not exactly Lady Gaga by popularity and coverage, but the article now appears to summarize her background and work as a musician and the quartet's work reasonably well. Looking at similar GAs of similar notable artists this appears to scrape it, although I'm sure some would still dispute me passing this. Before nominating an article again I strongly suggest you look at existing GAs of that subject and see what is generally required for GA as I would have failed this but for the improvements. It could still use another pair of eyes I think to check over it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)