Talk:Yesterday's Wine/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: GreatOrangePumpkin (talk · contribs) 15:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

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

1. Hi, sorry, but this entry is straight up WEIRD. sounds like creative writing turned encyclopedic gone wrong. love the album more than most anything though. thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.120.24 (talk) 03:45, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
2. It is reasonably well written.

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

   "hadvast" seems to be a typo; I think it should be "vast", but that doesn't make sense, too.

Corrected.--GDuwenTell me! 15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

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

   Is Ref 4 and 6 the references for the full "Concept" section? Can you do the same shortcut-formatting like in Phases and Stages?

I added two more references for the other two paragraphs. Refs now with shortcuts--GDuwenTell me! 15:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

1. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

2. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

3. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

4. 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):

5. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

• ISBN check: ok
• Dabsolver check: fixed 2 links
• Checklinks check: ok
• Reflinks check: -
• On hold until you fix the issues.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 11:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

• Pass another great article!--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 17:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)