Talk:Yes (band)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Duonaut (talk · contribs) 23:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Duonaut and will be conducting this review. First, a check against the "immediate failure" criteria.

Y not a long way from meeting GA Criteria

Y no obvious copyvio

Y no cleanup tags

Y stable

Y N/A; first review

With this I will proceed onto reviewing against the main criteria. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Just checked against criteria 1. Article passed all requirements; very well written and the timeline format is par for the course for band articles. There were two statements which may need citation I found:

"Almost the entire band have openly stated their dislike of Union." (if not verified by a later ref, I didn't check)

"The following Yes studio album, as with Union, was masterminded by a record company, rather than by the band itself."

These are maybe not likely to be challenged so if they aren't fixed by the time I'm finished I may pass regardless, but ideally they would be sourced. Onto criteria 2; (a) is already an obvious pass so I'm down to (b)–(d). Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:48, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: thanks for the initial review! I just took a look at these now. I fixed the citation for the first one. For the second, I did add one citation to a supporting article, but I haven't been able to trace down the original source for this material -- I suspect it may come from Rick Wakeman: The Caped Crusader, which I don't have a copy of (I'm referencing Welch 2008, primarily). Anyway, just let me know what you recommend I do further about this. Thanks, Caleb Stanford (talk) 06:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I also fixed two of the citation needed templates. One left. Caleb Stanford (talk) 07:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

fixed the remaining CN. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: I have checked through all the requirements now. Regarding 2(b) I have some notes:

References to "Bruford" lead to nothing. I presume this is Bill Bruford's book in the further reading, and if this is the case it should be in Bibliography.

Fixed! I checked a couple of the citations in the book to verify this is indeed the source that is being referred to. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Some of the citations to AllMusic now don't back up what they say. I changed one of these, but you might want to go through and change them to archived versions that do back up what they say, particularly as I believe the stat guideline for good articles requires this.

Done Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The article states at one point 'He felt sections were "bled to death"', which must be cited as a direct quotation.

Found it! Chambers page 233 Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

The citation at "stated publicly that he was unhappy" should probably be moved to the comma. Just my opinion, though, rather than a requirement.

Done. Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Citation 111 does not cite Hawkins' recommendation, only Davison's joining of the band. It should be moved or replaced accordingly.

Apart from this the article is good. Great overview of the band's history and reception, and while it's long this is to be expected for a band that's 50 years old and has changed its lineup so much, so I don't believe this is against summary style. It is neutral, no undue weight I can tell and all opinions are cited save the above that I saw. Media seems good for the subject and stability as before is an obvious pass.

Done Caleb Stanford (talk) 00:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Pending these minor fixes it is a pass. Good work on this. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 08:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Those are good catches, thank you for the review! I will get to these over the next few days. Caleb Stanford (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: I think I've gone through and addressed all the required fixes. Let me know what the next steps are. Thanks! Caleb Stanford (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, assuming I haven't missed anything, you now pass. If I have missed something and it remains unfixed it will come up on later review. I'll do a quick look-over before I pass this, just to be sure. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Caleb Stanford: Citations were needed for UK charting as allmusic doesn't verify this. Otherwise I believe everything is fine and ready to pass. All the occurrences of UK charts that need sourcing should be marked with {{cn}}. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 22:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

@Duonaut: You are absolutely right. I've added the UK charts reference everywhere it is needed! Also added an archive URL and fixed a few other things. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Then with this it should be good to go. I'll close this review in a few seconds. Duonaut ^{(talk | contribs)} 21:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)