Jump to content

Talk:Giacomo Meyerbeer/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: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 21:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

[edit]

This article appears to be at or about GA-level, (see WP:WIAGA), in so far as it appears to be well referenced and board in scope. So I'm just going to work my way down the article, but leaving the WP:lead until last. Pyrotec (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in the review, I will be mostly concentrating on " problems", if any, rather than good points (they will be considered in the Overall summary).

  • Early years -
Looks OK.
  • Career -
    • In Italy & Recognition -
  • These two subsections look OK.

...stopping at this point. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Between Paris and Berlin -
  • Personality and beliefs -
  • Music and Theatre -
    • Music & Theatre -
  • Robert appears again in both subsections.
  • Reception -
    • Musical Influence & Critical Reception -
    • Wagner's campaign against Meyerbeer -
  • I don't have the citations to check, but I have concerns as to whether this section is compliant with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Statements are made of 'The vitriolic campaign of Richard Wagner ....; ... much a matter of personal spite as of racism...; was facetiously called by ...; however, none of these statements are direct quotations, but all the sentences in which they appear have citations.
  • Reevaluation -
  • The lead is intended to both introduce the topic of the article and summarise the main points (see WP:Lead) and arguably it does. The lead is four paragraphs long - well one sentence and three paragraphs, which is OK, but for an article of this length it's possibly a bit on the "lean side".
  • Taking the last paragraph as an example: the body of the article supports the statement of Wagner conducting a campaign against Meyerbeer but the emphasis appears to read differently, the lead omits any mention of Rienzi and that the campaign became stronger after the death of Meyerbeer. All three paragraphs should be considered in respect of the Relative emphasis requirement in Introductory text.

Response

[edit]

Thanks for this: I have made corrections as suggested, and also responded at Pyrotec (talk). --Smerus (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall summary

[edit]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    However, see my comment, above, about citations need for the first paragraph of Reevaluation section.
    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 tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    Yes.
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Well illustrated.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

I'm awarding this article GA-status. It's quite a "strong GA (well appart from that uncited paragraph), and I suspect that this article could, at a future date, be a successful candidate at WP:FAC. Pyrotec (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have added a citation for the para you mention.--Smerus (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the reference. I did not see any real point in delaying the award of GA whilst it was done. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]