Talk:LittleBits Synth Kit/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Reviewer: Dylan620 (talk · contribs) 21:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Six months is a really unfortunate wait for a review... I'll tackle this sometime within the next few days. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 21:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Considering that Schminnte has since retired, I can take on this review and address all concerns. Thanks for reviewing! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 01:21, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated MyCatIsAChonk! Yeah, I noticed after I dibbed the nomination that Schminnte had retired, though I still intended to proceed with the review anyway as this article is entitled to one, especially after waiting for so long. I started looking at the article last night; knock on wood, I should have a review finished later today or tomorrow. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 15:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @MyCatIsAChonk for agreeing to take this on. I’ve decided (emboldened by TFA) to respond to my outstanding nominations as it's not fair on reviewers for me to drop tools and run (@Sohom Datta, I will renominate Hackaball for this reason if you are still interested). I expect I will fully return to editing at some point, so future Schminnte will be annoyed if I leave this in the queue for another six months. Chonk, if you want to help out it would be appreciated as I will be taking this one slowly. Cheers, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 16:33, 29 February 2024 (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, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   See below.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   A spot check of sources verified the information for which they are cited, but there are a couple issues which I have detailed below.

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.:

   Between October 18 and February 28, this article had only been edited once; categorically stable enough for GA.

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

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• The prose is generally excellent, but there are some minor issues with repetition, though I did take it upon myself to fix a couple of them. The name Reggie Watts appears in full five times in the prose; this is only necessary the first time he is mentioned. Subsequent mentions should just refer to him as Watts. Other names that appear in full more times than necessary are Tatsuya Takahashi and Justin Lincoln.
• In the same paragraph that mentions Lincoln, I suggest trimming The American experimental artist Justin. Nullsleep's genre is not mentioned in that paragraph, so excising that particular Lincoln clause would make the passage more consistent, while also removing the second mention of Lincoln's first name.
• Chelsea-based – should be clarified, whether in prose or by piping a link, that this is Chelsea, Manhattan. The source refers to a venue called Spectrum in a Chelsea, New York; while the disambiguation page for Chelsea lists multiple municipalities with that name in New York, a Google Search for "spectrum chelsea ny" turns up a Manhattan address.
• The URL for ref #16 – labeled as Bruce Aisher's review for Music Radar – instead links to Rebecca Greenfield's review for Fast Company.
• Is it Music Radar or MusicRadar? The spacing is inconsistent in the refs, while the one usage in the article text omits the space between the words.

Schminnte and Chonk – this article nearly meets the criteria, but the above points must be addressed before I can comfortably promote it. Other than that, Schminnte, I'm quite impressed. This was an enjoyable read; the prose is engaging, the article is structured in a way that is easy to navigate, and there are no issues I could detect WRT copyright. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 23:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@Dylan620, all fixed- many thanks for the review! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing so quickly! I can now pass the article :) Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Seems like I wasn't needed after all! Thank you both for undertaking the review, I appreciate it. All the best, Schminnte ^{[talk to me]} 06:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.