Talk:Go, Cubs, Go/GA2

Go, Cubs, Go GA Review

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

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Article comports with MoS. The prose flows a little awkwardly in places. I would suggest moving the last paragraph of the "History" section up, as the section starts in 1984, goes through 1994 and then jumps back to 1984 again. The first paragraph of "Modern resurgence" also reads a little awkwardly. Very long sentences. I would remove the words "which was entitled" from the first sentence, along with rewording "for a combination of reasons that includes" to the simpler "following". I would remove the words "In addition, the" from the second sentence and just have it as something like "WGN began delaying post-game commentary to allow viewers to see fans at Wrigley Field listening to the song and singing along." I would clarify "winter conference" as the casual reader may not know what that means. The thematic issues section does not IMHO add a lot of value as a separate section. Can the text be incorporated elsewhere?

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Overall sourcing looks good but I'd like to see a complete reference for the biography including publication data. I'm concerned about the assertion for the resurgence in popularity as the sources don't mention the song in connection with the division wins or the release of the biography.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers the song, the writing of it, the songwriter, song usage and cover version. Remains focused on the song without digressing.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Fair and unbiased coverage.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   Article is stable and no edit warring.

6. 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):

   All images have appropriate usage tags. I question how much the cubs win flag image and the anniversary album image add to the article. The cubs win image is free but I wonder whether the album cover would stand a NFCC #8 challenge.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I'm placing the article on hold for seven days to allow for the above concerns to be addressed. Please let me know if you have any questions. Otto4711 (talk) 08:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have responded to the feedback above. Usually, I am asked for less publication info. I.E., I added the ISBN, which I am usually asked to remove. Also, I am not sure where to move the thematic issues so I just left it. As the article improves I hope for augmentation of this section.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Everything looks good except the image question. I'm not going to hold the article up over the themes section. I have posted a request for feedback on the image issue here. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

ironically, out of the three cover art images used, i think that the one in question has the best argument of fair use. The top image does nothing to improve an article about the song and the second seems merely for "decoration". The anniversary album reflects the popularity of the song and presents the theme of Wrigley Field, i would actually say to get rid of the other two covers and use the questioned image as the lead. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tony, what do you think about re-arranging the images per Zappernapper? Otto4711 (talk) 07:24, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider neither the original nor the current cover art decorative.for the reader interested in this song. Since the original did not have single cover art, the album is the best alternative for the infobox, IMO. The current cover art is obviously relevant to me. As for which one is the best for the lead, I continue to think that the current one is the best because it was the first associated with the subject of the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
• OK, I'm still not 100% sold on the image issue but since another editor believes it's all right, I'm certainly not going to fail the article because of it. Congratulations! Otto4711 (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)