GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: RainCity471 ( talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so over the next few days I'll review (hopefully). I can't do a lot of editing during weekdays (too much homework) and will be away from the 16th to the 21st of November.
The article does not have any cleanup tags, and in my opinion looks reasonable in relation to the criteria. It looks like a lot of work has been put into it, and I look forward to reviewing it. RainCity471( whack!) 22:14, 2 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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fairly confident on this, though I will check soon. (The fiction and list incorporation guidelines do not apply to this article.) |
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 layout look fine, although I have not yet done a detailed check on sources as required. |
![]() |
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). | There are many inline citations, although I will do a detailed check soon. I would recommend archiving the web urls with
WebCite (go to
http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url=(WEB_ADDRESS)&email=(EMAIL_ADDRESS) , replacing (WEB_ADDRESS) with the website address and (EMAIL_ADRESS) with a valid email). As the urls are not bare, this isn't required for GA but it would help with verifiability in the future.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Nothing that sticks out, although I will be more confident after I've completed reference verification. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The largest section is the North America history, and the "Current events" section seems to be pretty short compared to it. I do have experience in classical music but I'm not familiar with singing, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll ask for a second opinion when the rest of the review's mostly done. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Over-detail does not appear to be a problem. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks ok, |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Has settled down after expansion and does not appear to have had edit wars. |
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. | All fine. In my opinion, maybe the Liederkranz Quartettverein image could go to the Current events section to ease the big block of text after the start of the article, but this is not required for GA. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good. The archive photo ( File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06264, Wien, Umzug zum Sängerbund-Fest.jpg) seems to have a caption/id numbers at the bottom of it; I might crop that off and put it on the file page instead. This isn't required for GA either. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Here are some phrases I think could be put a bit better:
Saengerfest
, it says sängerfest
in the actual content. I believe this isn't required for GA, but it probably would be worth sorting out. Should the article be moved or the sängerfests changed to saengerfest?
RainCity471 (
whack!)
20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)either you have reached a page unavailable for viewing, or you have reached your viewing limit for this book
".There as a (November 11th) request for someone to finish this review. It looks like nobody has volunteered. I'd be happy to do it and will. I'll wait a day or 2 for comments in case I have misunderstood the situation. North8000 ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: RainCity471 ( talk · contribs) 22:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so over the next few days I'll review (hopefully). I can't do a lot of editing during weekdays (too much homework) and will be away from the 16th to the 21st of November.
The article does not have any cleanup tags, and in my opinion looks reasonable in relation to the criteria. It looks like a lot of work has been put into it, and I look forward to reviewing it. RainCity471( whack!) 22:14, 2 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. | |
![]() |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | Fairly confident on this, though I will check soon. (The fiction and list incorporation guidelines do not apply to this article.) |
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 layout look fine, although I have not yet done a detailed check on sources as required. |
![]() |
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). | There are many inline citations, although I will do a detailed check soon. I would recommend archiving the web urls with
WebCite (go to
http://www.webcitation.org/archive?url=(WEB_ADDRESS)&email=(EMAIL_ADDRESS) , replacing (WEB_ADDRESS) with the website address and (EMAIL_ADRESS) with a valid email). As the urls are not bare, this isn't required for GA but it would help with verifiability in the future.
|
![]() |
2c. it contains no original research. | Nothing that sticks out, although I will be more confident after I've completed reference verification. |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
![]() |
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | The largest section is the North America history, and the "Current events" section seems to be pretty short compared to it. I do have experience in classical music but I'm not familiar with singing, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I'll ask for a second opinion when the rest of the review's mostly done. |
![]() |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Over-detail does not appear to be a problem. |
![]() |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | Looks ok, |
![]() |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | Has settled down after expansion and does not appear to have had edit wars. |
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. | All fine. In my opinion, maybe the Liederkranz Quartettverein image could go to the Current events section to ease the big block of text after the start of the article, but this is not required for GA. |
![]() |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Good. The archive photo ( File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-06264, Wien, Umzug zum Sängerbund-Fest.jpg) seems to have a caption/id numbers at the bottom of it; I might crop that off and put it on the file page instead. This isn't required for GA either. |
![]() |
7. Overall assessment. |
Here are some phrases I think could be put a bit better:
Saengerfest
, it says sängerfest
in the actual content. I believe this isn't required for GA, but it probably would be worth sorting out. Should the article be moved or the sängerfests changed to saengerfest?
RainCity471 (
whack!)
20:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)either you have reached a page unavailable for viewing, or you have reached your viewing limit for this book
".There as a (November 11th) request for someone to finish this review. It looks like nobody has volunteered. I'd be happy to do it and will. I'll wait a day or 2 for comments in case I have misunderstood the situation. North8000 ( talk) 11:49, 10 December 2013 (UTC)