Talk:Jape (band)/GA1

Latest comment: 15 years ago by Candlewicke in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit

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

Starting review. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Checking against GA criteria

edit
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):   b (MoS):  
    • This is a brightly written, well-balanced article, I have corrected a couple of minor grammatical errors and inserted line breaks in the infobox rather than backslashes. It conforms to the WP:MOS guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):  
    • References are all to live websites, References #1, #13, #21, #22, #25, #34, #35 and #38 are to a subscription only site. Please provide quotes from this site in the citation or an alternative source. Reference #6 is self published and probably unnecessary. References #17 and #19 are to a forum which is not a WP:RS. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Comment from article creator, expander and nominator. Reference #17 is from a magazine and reference #19 is from a radio station. I had included links to their long-standing Wikipedia articles which should verify that. --candlewicke 19:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah, as the original #6 was removed those references are now #16 and #18 respectively. thumped dot com does not meet WP:RS. I expect you could drop #16 as #17 supports it. and maybe find a new source for 18. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
What exactly is wrong with thumped dot com? It seems to deliver musical information in a news format? --candlewicke 23:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
thumped.dot.com is a forum, please read [1]. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure? I'm not familiar with the site but I've had opinions expressed to me before that sources such as Hot Press or even The Irish Times are inappropriate due to them having blog sections, etc. which is quite frankly ludicrous. I just want to be sure that you are certain that it is not more than a forum? --candlewicke 02:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've removed the disputed references. --candlewicke 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I looks like a forum, has no statement of editorial policy, or indded of owenetrship, hense it is not a WP:RS. Bets left out as you have done. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've addressed your subscription only concerns. Some of the links to that site do not in fact require a subscription so the "only" bit is incorrect. For those which were inaccessible I provided the quotes requested. A number of references also have one or two back-up sources, particularly those in the "Awards" section, so the necessary information may be found in those. Thank you. --candlewicke 19:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
OK, I have moved the blocked quotes from the format as it was a bit clumsy. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
  1. It is broad in its scope.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
  3. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:  
  4. 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):  
  5. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  
    Now that the refernce problem is fixed I will pass this. Of course there will be other ways this artcile can be imrpoved in the future. Jezhotwells (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
    Woohoo! --candlewicke 20:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)Reply