Talk:LilyPond/GA1
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Calvin999 in topic GA Review
GA Review
edit| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 07:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
When are you going to begin? Peter Sam Fan 19:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- I will do it this weekend, don't worry. — Calvin999 21:09, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- Quite a few dead links
- Some dablinks
- I'd add a hatnote to the top of the article saying {{Distinguish|Lily Pond}}
- You don't need to say "; 20 years ago" in the info box
- You could use the {{hlist|}} for the language in the info box: {{hlist|English|Dutch|French|German|Hungarian|Italian|Japanese|Spanish}}
- These should be alphabetically too
- The lead really isn't giving a broad enough overview of the rest of the article, it's too short.
- I don't see the point of having one sentence sub sections for Version 1.0 and Version 2.0. Just add these to the end of the History section para.
- The screenshot of Screenshot of LilyPond running on Linux needs to be on the left and placed at the top of the Design section, as it is currently defaulting to under the info box
- Try to avoid single sentence/line paragraphs. There are a lot of them.
- One benefit of this is that more than one language can be included in the same source file. → Unsourced
- Another scorewriter with comparable features to LilyPond is SCORE, but SCORE relies on manual positioning more than Lilypond does. → Unsourced
- There are inconsistencies in the date formatting in the references.
- Most are missing a work or publisher
- Is ref 14 supposed to have a red link for the name?
- Looking at the history of the article, I don't really think you've done must to improve it. There are a handful of minor changes.
- Outcome
Failing this article because I don't think that it was sufficiently prepared for being nominated to be a Good Article. There are issues with sourcing, comprehensiveness and referencing. I'm sure there must be more info than there currently is. This article does not satisfy the criteria at the present stage. It needs a lot of work, more than I believe is worth putting on hold for 7 days for. — Calvin999 08:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)