Talk:Jonita Lattimore

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jonita Lattimore/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 05:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform the users associated with the article that I am quick-failing the article for the following reasons.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance:

   Overlinking, linking to pages that don't exist, grammar, paragraph structure. ect.. ect..

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

I see you quick-failed Jonita Lattimore. There is a problem with the permalinks on the Sun-Times articles. I have a call into the Chicago Public Library. If you assumed that each failed URL were to a valid print edition page, this would pass the citations. I don't think that almost any of the images are improperly licensed. Can you please elaborate. With this many images if only one or two are improperly licensed, you have misevaluated the images section.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I may need to tag the ProQuest newspapers with membership required. I think if you take into account the Newsbank permalink error and a possible need to refine the ProQuest links as membership required, this would pass several of the sections above.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Renomination for GA??

Why was this article renominated for GA after zero effort was put into bettering the article? This is one of the most difficult articles to read that I've ever come across. It doesn't flow, and it's not engaging. It's like reading a shopping list of Jonita's accomplishments in paragraph form, is loaded with redlinks, and so on and so on. What this article needs is a serious peer review, not a GA nom. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 21:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU! Ive been trying to explain this for the past 2 hours! ..:CK:.. ^(talk2me) 21:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to ask the same thing. For example, the first paragraph under Personal is just a series of sentences thrown together, seemingly without any attempt to group even subjects together. Xtzou (Talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jonita Lattimore/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Tim Pierce (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Prose: Most of the content in this article consists of a semi-chronological list of Lattimore's performances. I have to guess that some of these performances were more significant, well-received, notable than others, but the article doesn't give much sense as to which are which. I would like to see some summary of critical responses to her work, for example, and perhaps have the article focus on her most prominent performances. There is very little structure at all to the article, and it includes one {{very long}} template that I think is still appropriate.

   MoS: leave out some of the wikilinks to common terms (e.g. piano, trumpet, jazz, rhythm and blues. Most of the wikilinks are good and appropriate, but it makes the article so dense with links that it is especially important not to add unnecessary links.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   I have not exhaustively checked references for accuracy, but the article is scrupulously referenced and footnoted. Good job.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article does cover major aspects of Lattimore's career, but lacks focus and (as mentioned above) fails to address some crucial matters of interest like critical reactions.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   Very stable, mostly static since May 2010.

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):

   No images at all, so no inappropriate use is possible. This article really ought to have at least one image of the singer, though.

7. Overall: you've done a great job on references in this article, but the prose and structure need a great deal of work for it to reach GA status. I see that a couple of sentences got reworded and cleaned up after the previous failed GA, but I think it really needs a substantial top-to-bottom rewrite.

   Pass/Fail:

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Jonita Lattimore. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031026131639/http://www.chicagosinfonietta.org:80/artists/lattimore.html to http://chicagosinfonietta.org/artists/lattimore.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100423070104/http://www.musicintheloft.org:80/2006/200605_benefit/2006_benefit.htm to http://www.musicintheloft.org/2006/200605_benefit/2006_benefit.htm#lattimore
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20031026131639/http://www.chicagosinfonietta.org:80/artists/lattimore.html to http://chicagosinfonietta.org/artists/lattimore.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:32, 25 February 2016 (UTC)