GA Review

[edit]

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

Nominator: VirreFriberg (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: Sammi Brie (talk · contribs) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am taking up this review, but if VirreFriberg does not return within 7 days, I will fail it; the nominator is welcome in that event to resubmit after making changes. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 02:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Sammi Brie. I've gone over the article and changed the noted issues. (Upped the brightness of the trade-ad too, something which won't go into effect for a few days). VirreFriberg (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  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):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·

Some ref cleanup but a bunch of copy changes, one of which is an issue that was pretty pervasively wrong. Ping me when done. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 03:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? If you fancy doing so, I always have plenty of GA nominees to review. Just look for the all-uppercase titles in the Television section. Reviews always appreciated.

Copy changes

[edit]

Lead

[edit]

Background

[edit]

Composition

[edit]

Release

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

Sourcing and spot checks

[edit]

No Earwig issues: mostly flags attributed quotes.

Images

[edit]

The article has four images. One is a record sleeve with NFUR. The Sound and Vision Wiki image appears to be one of the ones with CC licensing. The ad without copyright notice is OK, though it'd be wonderful if it could be lightened so the white areas aren't dark gray in color. (that's an Encouragement, not required at GA.) The Glastonbury image is also CC-licensed. Encouragement: Add alt text.

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.