Talk:Prayer for Ukraine/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 08:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
Nearly there.
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Well done.
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Refs 23 and 25 need formatting to make the info verifiable (e.g. {{Cite AV media}}).
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Qualifier: I neither read nor speak Ukrainian, but the links do not bring up any red flags, and the few English sources are reputable.
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig shows only the lyrics, not unsurprisingly, are found elsewhere; I randomly googled a number of sentences from the article and they also came up nowhere except this article. The audio sample complies with WP:FUR and WP:NFC/Audio.
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Nively so, particularly in these times.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Self-published under CC0 1.0, musical score from 1885
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
-
- SN, thank you for fast but thorough reading! I don't quite know what you want for the recordings refs which I have frequently seen for classical music, and we even have this template for them. They open detailed entries on WorldCat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- I see that Grimes2 is in the process of reformatting these refs, - better? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent, say thank you to Grimes2 :) SN54129 15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- there's (almost) no day without thanks to Grimes2 - thank you as well! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
- Excellent, say thank you to Grimes2 :) SN54129 15:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
-
- Pass or Fail:
