Talk:Forte (vocal group)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Johanna (talk · contribs) 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Third on my "to review" list. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 03:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Allow me to note that there is a handful of invisible comments on the page. I look forward to your review. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 03:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• How common is the shortening Forte? Unless it's fairly standard, I would refer to the group either by their full name or as "the group" or "the trio" when applicable.
  • They were known as Forte on AGT, and their debut album was Forte (styled FORTE). They still style it FORTE via their PledgeMusic updates, though the project is titled "Forte Tenors from America's Got Talent". Their online presence: website, fortetenors.com; twitter, @ForteTenors; facebook, fortetenors. Their social media posts usually (not always) use FORTE; I've never seen them actually say so, but one gets the impression they'd just use FORTE if it wasn't so generic. (I've just changed it in the article to "(styled as FORTE)" in line with the common Wiki style for what is essentially a brand.)
• "Forte was created specifically for and rose to prominence during" Clunky--perhaps "Created during the eighth season of America's Got Talent, Forte Tenors rose to prominence due to their appearances on the show." Or something like that.
  • Fixed.
• I don't think that the Wiktionary link is helpful here.
  • Gone.
• What's your rationale for including so much about the background of each member?
  • Trimmed. The idea was to speak to how these men would end up together, but some was indeed peripheral.
• It doesn't appear that the first sentence about Ryu is sourced.
  • Same as second sentence. Comment added.
• The link for "schlub" doesn't make any sense to me, as it doesn't seem helpful at all.
  • You've lost me ... it links to Forte's copy of their audition and specifically to the moment Stern says what's quoted. I'll look into referencing options. Fixed.
• The word "rousing" is non-neutral
  • Fixed. Somehow I thought the accompanying note (Cannon's "That might've been the longest standing ovation we've had!") sufficiently covered "rousing".
• In the first sentence of the "Career" section, specify who the quote was from.
  • Done.
• Why is "MasterClassLady.com" a reliable source?
  • Granted, this is my opinion, but Rosanne Simunovic has excellent credentials wrt knowing and reviewing music. Since this is a review—and automatically subjective—credibility, not reliability, is the issue. IMO.
• I don't understand why this non-free music video image is necessary. Could you explain your reasoning to me or remove it? Also, the fair use rationale is not very expansive.
  • It directly accompanies 2014–present graf 2. The description of what all was involved in the making of the video notwithstanding, only the image really paints the picture, so to speak. Also, the rationale was adapted from a similarly used image; can you be more specific? (That being asked, I've made some additions.)
    • I expanded the caption a little bit, and I think it now meets WP:NFCC. Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• Wait, has the second album been released or not yet? I'm not sure…
  • Fixed.
• Why is the user-generated thing notable?
  • True, this speaks to the individuals rather than to the group, but it speaks to their standing among those who care to vote. Struck.
• The whole "Genre" subsection, not only mistitled, is pushing it a bit. There doesn't seem to be a bit of substantive information here--there's one user-generated thing and one that's a ranking that's really pushing it—after all, the group itself wasn't ranked as one entry on the list.
  • OperaPulse does single out the group.
• Why is "Jake's Take" a notable viewpoint?
  • I like his credentials; plus, he has interviewed Page and therefore has some knowledge of Forte. (That said, I've removed the review.)
• The file in this section is more defendable, but I would still prefer that the rationale is expanded.
  • See above.
• For the Fort Worth performance, specify who was saying this and why.
  • Each quote in the graf lists its author in the ref; to include it in the text strikes me as repetitive. That said, I've added the site names. One of the disadvantages of any "young" act is a dearth of critical response; again, this speaks more to me of what is credible (rather than reliable) within the context of the subjective.
• Ref 37 is a 503 (temporarily unavailable) page, but this should just be remedied by itself in a little while.
  • Fixed (I swear I'd just checked that ...)

@ATinySliver: Nice work! Some substantial stuff to comb through or talk about, but it should pass! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 04:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Johanna! I've fixed some issues above and replied to the remainder. I look forward to your response. —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 05:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

@ATinySliver: Great! I'm very comfortable with passing now. Thanks for the quick responses! :) Johanna (formerly BenLinus1214)^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 17:38, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My thanks to Johanna for an excellent review. Cheers! —ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 🖖 19:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)