Dare to Be Stupid has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominator:
User:Gen. Quon
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. | Prose is good. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | All problems resolved. | |
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. | The References section is fine. It could have better formatting (spacing, ISBNs), but these are very minor 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). | All problems resolved. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems with this. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All problems resolved. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Although I think "Yoda" is given too much coverage compared to other tracks, I don't think this is a big enough problem to disqualify the article from "Good" status. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems here. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems here. | |
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. | Images and samples are fine. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No problems here. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Congratulations, this passes all criteria. |
Two Hearted River ( paddle / fish) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the problems mentioned above have been fixed, and that's wonderful. There are still a few remaining problems, and I'm not quite comfortable giving this GA status until they are fixed. I'm willing to leave this open a few more days to see if we can nudge this up to GA status. But if it's not ready by the 6th, I'll have to fail the nom (allowing it can be renominated again later, of course, when the issues are resolved). I don't feel comfortable refactoring other people's comments, so I've listed the remaining five issues in one place, below. – Quadell ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dare to Be Stupid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Dare to Be Stupid has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer:
Quadell (
talk) 18:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Nominator:
User:Gen. Quon
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. | Prose is good. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | All problems resolved. | |
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. | The References section is fine. It could have better formatting (spacing, ISBNs), but these are very minor 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). | All problems resolved. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | No problems with this. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | All problems resolved. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Although I think "Yoda" is given too much coverage compared to other tracks, I don't think this is a big enough problem to disqualify the article from "Good" status. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No problems here. | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No problems here. | |
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. | Images and samples are fine. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | No problems here. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Congratulations, this passes all criteria. |
Two Hearted River ( paddle / fish) 20:43, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
Many of the problems mentioned above have been fixed, and that's wonderful. There are still a few remaining problems, and I'm not quite comfortable giving this GA status until they are fixed. I'm willing to leave this open a few more days to see if we can nudge this up to GA status. But if it's not ready by the 6th, I'll have to fail the nom (allowing it can be renominated again later, of course, when the issues are resolved). I don't feel comfortable refactoring other people's comments, so I've listed the remaining five issues in one place, below. – Quadell ( talk) 19:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Dare to Be Stupid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)