Talk:Robert Hunter (lyricist)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 18:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Vanamonde. I'd like to review this article. My current project I'm working on (very slowly, and lately mostly bit by bit organizing info from my sources offline) is actually Together Through Life. Anyway, looking forward to reviewing this. I may not be able to start the review for a few days or so. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up, and please take your time. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:17, 28 February 2020 (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):

   Well written.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Sources seem to be reliable. I spot-checked a few sources and the information cited seems good.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good comprehensiveness, and is focused.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Follows neutral point of view.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No problems with stability.

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

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

   The three images are all properly licensed in Wikipedia Commons, and are appropriately tagged.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Hi Vanamonde. Could you go through and make sure all the refs have authors and/or dates where appropriate? I noticed refs 3, 4, and 40 have authors and/or dates listed in the sources that are not mentioned in the refs. I'm not sure if there are others. Another minor point (may not be a GA requirement, but I recommend you look at it just for overall consistency) is a few publications in the Footnotes section are wiki-linked but most are not. Moisejp (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Moisejp: I think I've caught them all, thanks for pointing these out. Cheers, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

• Great. I'll try to have another look at the sources and hopefully wrap of the review shortly. Thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
• There were few more instances missing (authors, dates, etc.), but I've fixed them. I believe this article now meets GA requirements. Moisejp (talk) 07:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)