Jump to content

Talk:Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

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

Reviewer: SilkTork *YES! 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

I'll be looking at this. SilkTork *YES! 00:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent! Brilliant work - and done very quickly! SilkTork *YES! 08:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hit list

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    Album covers are acceptable for articles about the album - my understanding of Wikipedia:Non-free content is that the other images from the album cover are only acceptable if there is "critical commentary of that item", and I'm not sure that the cover is appropriately discussed. Image removed until appropriate commentary can be inserted
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

Further comments

[edit]
  • As that doubt is the only thing actually holding this back from GA, I'll remove the image for now. You can put it back later when you have some commentary. There are still the things we discussed above to improve the article, but I'm satisfied it meets the requirements of the GA criteria as it stands. You could do the additional things mentioned, and then look at the specific FA criteria (alt tags and the like) to see if you can get an FA pass as well. Discrete subjects like albums tend to be easier to get passed the "comprehensive" requirement. It helps to have a Wikipedia:Peer review - though I would suggest you add all the relevant material before doing that. SilkTork *YES! 18:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review, SilkTork - I wasn't expecting it to be that fast! I appreciate it. I've added a bit to the article - could you tell me what you think about it? I believe acclaimedmusic.net is an RS, as it is used widely throughout Wikipedia (see 2004 in music, 2005 in music). - I.M.S. (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can check with the folks at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, though it is generally accepted that if a site is well respected and well run, and other reliable sources use it, then it would be considered acceptable. I found three books which use the site: [1]. Actually I checked the noticeboard - it's been discussed twice - [2] and [3] - the first time mentions that it is used by three books, and it was accepted, the second (quite recent) time the person asking wasn't aware that it has been used by reliable sources, so it is quite worrying that the outcome was that they planned to create a bot to remove all uses of it as a a RS! From my reading of the site, the guy is taking his information purely from reliable sources. I would say that it is reliable. But it's worth another question at the noticeboard, pointing out the Google Books search. SilkTork *YES! 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for doing the research, SilkTork. I'll consider posting at RS/N inquiring about it. - I.M.S. (talk) 22:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pass

[edit]

Meets GA criteria. Passed. SilkTork *YES! 18:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]