Jump to content

Talk:Pablo Honey/GA1

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

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:24, 23 June 2024 (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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Nominator: PerfectSoundWhatever (talk · contribs) 23:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: The Sharpest Lives (talk · contribs) 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Hey! I'm Sam, aka The Sharpest Lives. I decided to review this article because I love radiohead and hope that this can reach GA, maybe even FA status. I'll get started on the review soon, probably around tomorrow. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 00:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to place this on hold. Below you can see my suggestions, and once they are addressed I will feel ready to promote the article. Good job! – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 20:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking over the article, I am ready to pass this. Time for a good topic! PS I found a source for the {{cn}} tag. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria

[edit]
Good Article Status - Review Criteria
Further information: WP:WIAGA

A good article is—

  1. Well-written:
    2. (a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct; and
    (b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]
  2. Verifiable with no original research:
    3. (a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;
    (b) 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);[2]
    (c) it contains no original research; and
    (d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[3] and
    (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. [4]
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. [5]
    (a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
    (b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.[6]

Notes

  1. ^ Compliance with other aspects of the Manual of Style, or the Manual of Style mainpage or subpages of the guides listed, is not required for good articles.
  2. ^ Footnotes must be used for in-line citations.
  3. ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required of featured articles; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not cover every major fact or detail, and overviews of large topics.
  4. ^ Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of unconstructive editing should be placed on hold.
  5. ^ Other media, such as video and sound clips, are also covered by this criterion.
  6. ^ The presence of images is not, in itself, a requirement. However, if images (or other media) with acceptable copyright status are appropriate and readily available, then some such images should be provided.

Review

[edit]
  1. Well-written:
    2. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (prose) Excellent lead Pass Pass
    (b) (MoS) Seems to follow MOS to me. Pass Pass
  2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
    3. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (references) Comments below Pass Pass
    (b) (citations to reliable sources) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass
    (c) (original research) Nothing appears to be OR Pass Pass
    (d) (copyvio and plagiarism) No copyvios detected Pass Pass
  3. Broad in its coverage:
    4. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (major aspects) Check Pass Pass
    (b) (focused) It goes into excellent detail. What a read! Pass Pass
  4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
    5. Notes Result
    No exceptional claims or anything non-neutral sounding Pass Pass
  5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
    6. Comment Result
    Relatively new and no sign of edit warring or ongoing Pass Pass
  6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
    7. Criteria Notes Result
    (a) (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales) I checked on the album cover NFUR, it's all correct. Pass Pass
    (b) (appropriate use with suitable captions) The reviewer has left no comments here Pass Pass

Result

[edit]
Result Notes
Pass Pass Check!

Background

[edit]

Release and promotion

[edit]

Critical reception & Legacy

[edit]
  • Each review listed in the {{Music ratings}} template should have its own mention in the prose as well. Calgary Herald and Select are examples of reviews lacking prose. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 18:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    First I've heard of this idea. Is this stipulated in a guideline somewhere? Popcornfud (talk) 03:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I based it off of the info on the template page, which says "The template is not to be a substitute for a section in paragraph form, since a review can not be accurately boiled down to a simple rating out of five stars or other numeric score." I assumed this applied to all reviews, but feel free to object. – The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 03:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a beneficial thing to do, but I would guess that most agree it's not a requirement to pass the GA criteria. I've found a text copy of the Calgary Herald source on ProQuest. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 04:47, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds fair. My only other comment left open is the first under "Release and promotion".– The Sharpest Lives (💬•✏️•ℹ️) 05:00, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pablo_Honey/GA1&oldid=1230613786"