Talk:...I Care Because You Do/GA1
Latest comment: 4 months ago by 222emilia222 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: LunaEclipse (talk · contribs) 14:14, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Reviewer: 222emilia222 (talk · contribs) 22:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- Background section could lead better into Composition section. Right now it almost reads more as a Biography excerpt than the context for this specific album. The end should preferrably set up ... I Care Because You Do. Minor gripe, no reason not to pass :)
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. 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):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- 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):
- Again, Background section is somewhat disconnected from the articles subject matter. No reason not to pass, but should be improved upon :)
- 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:
- 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:
- Honestly, could be more! I imagine examplary photos of the analogue gear James used would be very fitting. Album cover is of course fair use!
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- no caption needed, as it's an album artwork
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Some minor areas that could be improved in the future, but all in all a very well written article! Great use of inline citations and quotes. I would recommend citing the authors of the articles that are being quoted more often and not just saying "Spin wrote that..." (Instead writing "Reviewing the album for Spin magazine, Will Hermes wrote that..." but it's completely fine, just a quick minor feedback note! :))
- Pass or Fail:
