Talk:The Nightfly/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'll be reviewing this over the next few days. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again @Saginaw-hitchhiker: I've gone through the entire article, and let me just say that it is immaculate. Aside from a couple of grammatical errors; a single ref being out of numerical order; the column width on the singles section of the infobox being out of line; the page numbers of two references appearing outside of the references (I've fixed all these), I mean, it was basically perfect. The prose is perfectly written, with zero fancruft or weasel words, and everything on the article is perfectly sourced and accurate.

However, there is an issue with the audio file in the Songs section. Per the audio use policy: "Samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." The clip of the title track is 38 seconds long, and should be reduced.

Aside from that, I'm more than satisfied that the article meets the good article criteria, and will be happy to promote it once the issue with the sound clip is rectified.

Great work! And well done. Homeostasis07 (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @Homeostasis07:, thanks for such a great review!! I've loved this album for a long time so getting it up to speed was a pleasure. As for the sound clip, it's been edited -- it's still over 30 seconds, but it's only 10 percent (34.5 seconds) of the song, which runs 5:45. I knew that it was long when I submitted it, haha, and I figured i'd have to change it for GA. I just really liked that the clip showcased the chorus and the beautiful segments thereafter... haha. But thanks a ton! Thanks for fixing those ref's, too. Saginaw-hitchhiker (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

No problem. The article is so top quality that reviewing it was a breeze. If only every other article at GAN was like this one, there wouldn't be a 7-month wait. :( Congratulations, again. Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Review

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

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.:

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):

7. Overall:

Well done! Homeostasis07 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)