Rain in England 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. Review: June 28, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Rain in England appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 March 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you don't mind another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one; I'm trying to clean out some of the older articles from the backlog. Again, sorry you had to wait so long for a reviewer; it seems there's many more people who want to nominate music articles this year than who want to review them, unfortunately. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This looks like more extremely solid work from you. Again, it seems well written and well sourced, and I've made only a few tweaks as I read along. A few quibbles I didn't want to change without discussing are below:
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. | ||
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. | ||
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 |
To summarize, this article is clearly ripe for promotion; I'd just like to get your thoughts on these minor points first. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Rain in England (album) → Rain in England – reverting undiscussed move – Dohn joe ( talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Good arguments on both sides: first off, obviously UK rainfall is way more significant, but Rain in wherever has never been a redirect to a similar page anywhere on Wikipedia (though now In ictu oculi has created some of those redirects, which is obviously fine). If you found a consensus here, congratulations, because after six weeks of this move request being open, I sure didn't. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Rain in England →
Rain in England (album) –
rain in England without capital 'R' should redirect to
UK rainfall records or
Climate of England.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Rain in England 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. Review: June 28, 2013. ( Reviewed version). |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from Rain in England appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 29 March 2013 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Khazar2 ( talk · contribs) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Assuming you don't mind another review from me so soon, I'll be glad to take this one; I'm trying to clean out some of the older articles from the backlog. Again, sorry you had to wait so long for a reviewer; it seems there's many more people who want to nominate music articles this year than who want to review them, unfortunately. Initial comments to follow in the next 1-3 days. Thanks in advance for your work on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 02:09, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
This looks like more extremely solid work from you. Again, it seems well written and well sourced, and I've made only a few tweaks as I read along. A few quibbles I didn't want to change without discussing are below:
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. | ||
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. | ||
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 |
To summarize, this article is clearly ripe for promotion; I'd just like to get your thoughts on these minor points first. -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard ( talk) 22:32, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Rain in England (album) → Rain in England – reverting undiscussed move – Dohn joe ( talk) 21:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus. Good arguments on both sides: first off, obviously UK rainfall is way more significant, but Rain in wherever has never been a redirect to a similar page anywhere on Wikipedia (though now In ictu oculi has created some of those redirects, which is obviously fine). If you found a consensus here, congratulations, because after six weeks of this move request being open, I sure didn't. ( non-admin closure) Red Slash 02:51, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Rain in England →
Rain in England (album) –
rain in England without capital 'R' should redirect to
UK rainfall records or
Climate of England.
In ictu oculi (
talk) 04:12, 13 March 2015 (UTC)