Talk:Song Without Words

Song Without Words has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: October 9, 2014. (Reviewed version).

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Comics Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Some more sources?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's some brief discussion of Song Without Words in this article, which is from volume 19 of the journal World Libraries. I also note that it's been republished at least once- see here. That edition was briefly reviewed (but with only a passing mention of Song Without Words) in BOMB, which is accessible through JSTOR. J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Song Without Words/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bobamnertiopsis (talk · contribs) 21:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

I'll take this one over the next few days! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 21:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )

3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

This is an easy pass. The prose is clean and tight and the article complies with MoS areas lead, layout, words to watch, and fiction. There are ample references and each is laid out and formatted consistently. No original research appears to be present. The article is broad enough so as to cover relevant areas of the work and focused enough to not expound unnecessarily on unrelated topics. It's neutral, quite stable, and has one relevant image that is hosted on en.wikipedia and has an adequate FUR.

All in all, high quality work. Thanks for your effort on this article! Best, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 19:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic