Talk:The River (Bruce Springsteen album)/GA1

GA Review

Passed. Tavantius (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Nominator: Zmbro (talk · contribs) 00:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Tavantius (talk · contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.	None. It certainly fulfills this criteria. The language is kept relatively simple with more complex words linked.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	No immediate Manual of Style failures.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	No complaints here.
	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).	No problems here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No issues here.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	~~Although Earwig is still broken, the Earwig detector has an alarming 88% copyright violation. However, it seems that's due to the quotes. In any other case, please tweak the non-quotes.~~ Broken Earwig. Now, there are no copyvios that I know of.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	No real issues, so far.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Stable enough.
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.	No issues.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	No issues.
	7. Overall assessment.	~~If not for the possible copyright violations, I'd accept it. Please tweak portions of the article so I can make it a GA.~~ Accepted due to mistakes.

Earwig isn't working for me so I'll have to wait until it cooperates to see what the deal is. In the meantime, I'm going to need a little more specifics than just "tweak portions of the article". – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tavantius – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 15:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, when I checked it again, Earwig instead stated that instead of the alarming 88% I saw yesterday, there is a 41.5% copyvio in this site. It seems like that copvio is possibly exaggerated as well, with many of the alleged ones being mere quotes and simple sentences. With that in mind, and the general quality of this article, I'll accept it. Tavantius (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.