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

GA Review[edit]

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

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Almost all issues from GA1 have been fixed and appropriately striked-out. The only one that still seems slightly clumsy is the line in the Live Performance section: "Röyksopp is known for its elaborate concert performances". The is-are has become is-its which is better. The intention of the sentence is clear, even though grammar pedants will argue this one forever. WP:GAC doesn't require perfect prose, it requires reasonably well written prose. If it ever goes for WP:FAC, someone else can worry about this sentences under §1(a) of WP:FACR. Not me though. Passed.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    No change from GA1 on WP:OR and WP:RS criteria. §2(a) has one small problem: the link to Kotaku looks broken to the link checker I'm using, but that's more due to the new and utterly broken redesign of all Gawker Media websites. Curse them. Curse them to hell.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Since GA1, the lack of critical reviews has been addressed.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Lack of critical reviews has been resolved with the Pitchfork links since GA1.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Blissfully vandalism and edit war free!
  6. 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):
    Images are all free and on Wikimedia Commons! Captions are fine.
  7. Overall:
    As I've said: the mostly stylistic issues that were raised in GA1 have been resolved. As someone who is an electronic music fan (this Good Article review was brought to you with the help of Daft Punk, The Cinematic Orchestra and The Chemical Brothers), I knew of Röyksopp and had heard some of their tracks (I'd seen the video for Remind Me and heard other tracks on adverts etc.) but didn't know anything about the band, this was informative and readable. Good article.
Awesome news! Thanks!--Gen. Quon (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer: Tom Morris (talk) 02:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)