Difference between revisions of "Template:GAstart"

From blackwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>SilkTork
imported>SilkTork
Line 46: Line 46:
  
 
===General comments===
 
===General comments===
*"The live instrumentation showcased throughout the album is an ear-catching detour from 9th Wonder's usual sample-based production." This sounds like opinion or journalese. Can this be rewritten in a neutral encyclopedic style? [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 14:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 
*"underwent a few pushbacks" - can this be clarified or written up in neutral encyclopedic style. From the context it appears that the album's release was delayed several times. Can that be stated instead? [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 
* "In October 2009, it was reported..." Did what was reported actually happen? If so, it would be clearer to use the direct language: "Banner and 9th Wonder set up a website." If what was reported did not happen, can we have some details, and rather than "reported" is it possible to confirm what went on? [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 14:17, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 
* "was [[Internet leak|leaked]] onto the internet" Not clear from the context if the track was authorised or not. Source cited doesn't give much information. The source appears to be a download site. Is there a source which talks about this "leak"? [[User:SilkTork|SilkTork]] ([[User talk:SilkTork|talk]]) 14:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 

Revision as of 14:21, 29 August 2019

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork (talk)

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused:
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:


Comments on GA criteria

Pass


Query


Fail

General comments