Talk:Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

I've read through this article and made a few minor edits, but there is a {{citation needed}} flag in Legacy. I'm just going to work my way through the article one more time. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was something that was there when I originally looked at the article to get it to GA status. Couldn't source it, so I removed it. An IP added it recently, so I tagged it to give them time to source it. I would remove the entire sentence that is tagged. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fairly short article, so I'm just going to do an overall summary. There were a couple of points that came to the "fore" during my final but they are more in the way of comments:

In the Filming/Pompeii subsection I thought it might be useful to wikilink "24 track recorder" but that was not so easy as Multitrack recording is a general article and Ampex#16 and 24-track recorders is far more specific, but having checked all the references there was no way to know whether they were using Ampex (tm) equipment.
In the Outtakes section there is a mention of "Archives du Film du Bois D'Arcy near Paris", which seems to be Fort de Bois-d'Arcy, but the sources don't provide the necessary confirmation that they are the same. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

An informative article.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has appropriate reference section:

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
There is one non-free image, but justification for its use is given

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to award this article GA-status. Congratulations on getting this article up to GA standard. Pyrotec (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing the review quickly and diligently. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]