GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Where's the love for jazz over at WikiProject Music? Well, I hope you're not sick of getting reviewed by me, but as long as your nominations keep ending up in our list of the oldest noms, I'm going to keep reviewing them.
Anyway, I hope to get comments up about this one today or tomorrow. Thanks as always for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks like your usual good work. I've only got a few points I'd like your input on so far:
As far as the other criteria go, the article is neutral, stable, and has no images (so no problems with criterion 6). I don't see any MOS issues or prose issues beyond the above. I'll do a more thorough source check for accuracy, copyright issues, and completeness later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this one on as well... My responses are indented above. Some of your points are unresolved, so I'll see what I can do and await your follow-up. EddieHugh ( talk) 13:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
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. Manual spotchecks and copyvio detector find no evidence of copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparison to online biographies shows no main aspects left out (indeed, this may be the most comprehensive biography on the Internet) |
![]() |
3b. 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. 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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
I cross-checked the discog with other online sources, and ruled a few albums out when I couldn't find anything that matched the jazzdiskat info. Thanks for your help in getting the first article that I really worked on to GA. EddieHugh ( talk) 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Where's the love for jazz over at WikiProject Music? Well, I hope you're not sick of getting reviewed by me, but as long as your nominations keep ending up in our list of the oldest noms, I'm going to keep reviewing them.
Anyway, I hope to get comments up about this one today or tomorrow. Thanks as always for your work! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 18:48, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
On first pass, this looks like your usual good work. I've only got a few points I'd like your input on so far:
As far as the other criteria go, the article is neutral, stable, and has no images (so no problems with criterion 6). I don't see any MOS issues or prose issues beyond the above. I'll do a more thorough source check for accuracy, copyright issues, and completeness later today or tomorrow. Cheers, Khazar2 ( talk) 19:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking this one on as well... My responses are indented above. Some of your points are unresolved, so I'll see what I can do and await your follow-up. EddieHugh ( talk) 13:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
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. Manual spotchecks and copyvio detector find no evidence of copyright issues. |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | |
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. | |
![]() |
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). | |
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Comparison to online biographies shows no main aspects left out (indeed, this may be the most comprehensive biography on the Internet) |
![]() |
3b. 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. 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. | |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. | Pass as GA |
I cross-checked the discog with other online sources, and ruled a few albums out when I couldn't find anything that matched the jazzdiskat info. Thanks for your help in getting the first article that I really worked on to GA. EddieHugh ( talk) 22:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)