Talk:Source: Music of the Avant Garde/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: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 19:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC) I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: (Disambiguated 10 links; Unlinked: Stanley Marsh; Help needed: Jack Reynolds [1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Linkrot: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   also known and hereafter referred to as Source Magazine – is an independent, not-for-profit musical and artistic magazine published between 1967 and 1973 by teachers and students of University of California, Davis, CA. mixed tense, should be past tense. "University of California, Davis, CA." "students of the". we don't use contractions such as CA. on Wikipedia.

   It emerged from the flourishing Californian musical experimentalism of the late 1950s-early 1960s, either at UC-Davis, UC Berkeley's Department of Music or Mills College Why don't we know which? Who says it was "flourishing?

   Source Magazine's board of editors first met in the New Music Ensemble, created 1963 "created in 1963"

   Spring 1966, the group officially launched "In the spring of 1966"

   The first 2 issues had a print run of 1,000 copies each, while starting with issue #3, the magazine had a circulation of 2,000 copies. clumsy phrasing.

   Along the years very clumsy

   Appendix. This does not conform with the {{WP:MOS]] A summary of the issues, with perhaps a selection of featured composers could go further up, before the references and external links. A separate list article could be spun off.

   The lead does not summarise the article fully, see WP:LEAD

   The whole piece could do with a thorough copy edit to improve prose flow and style.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Despite or thanks to its short existence, the scope of Source magazine appears both focused and wide ranging. Who said this?, needs citation

   therefore expanding the very definition of music. Who said this?, needs citation

   There are rather a lot of un-cited statements.

   Sources used appear reliable.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Why did the magazine cease publication? How was it received by critics?

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Rather a lot of unattributed commentary in the article.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   appears stable

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):

   The logo is incorrectly licensed, it is presumably still under copyright and should have a suitable non-free use rationale.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   This needs a lot of work to get to GA status. Please familiarise yourself with the WP:WIAGA, then when the problems are addressed take it to peer review, before renominating. You may also get help from relevant projects. Not listed at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2011 (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.