Scaramouche (Milhaud) has been listed as one of the Music 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: March 30, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
Scaramouche (Milhaud) (final version) received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which on 2 April 2023 was archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
A fact from Scaramouche (Milhaud) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 March 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
For when I get access: [1][2] Schminnte (talk • contribs) 19:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The result was: promoted by Valereee (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Created by Schminnte (talk). Self-nominated at 19:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Scaramouche (Milhaud); consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
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.
Reviewer: MyCatIsAChonk (talk · contribs) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll review this, looks well cited and written already! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 13:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. |
The prose is all good now. | |
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. |
No issues with mos standards. | |
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. |
Now, the sources section needs to be alphabetized by last name (see Claude Debussy) | |
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | Most sources are from thesises, books, or journals; other citations are good. I'll note that the four AllMusic citations pull information from descriptions, so they're good too. | |
2c. it contains no original research. | The article is very well-cited; no original research is visible. | |
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Earwig shows a high copyvio score for this site, but it just caught a large blockquote from Milhaud's autobiography. No copyvios and plagiarism visible. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | Addresses everything an article about a composition should address, including sections about performances and recordings. | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | Stays focused throughout; the "Structure and music" section nicely summarizes some of the themes and techniques used throughout. | |
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | No bias visible | |
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | No recent edit wars | |
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | All images are tagged with PD or LoC tags. | |
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Images are relevant and properly captioned. | |
7. Overall assessment. | Waiting on the above things to be addressed Schminnte. Otherwise, it's a well developed article! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2023 (UTC) |