Talk:Aram Khachaturian/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 20:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Copyvio test found some direct quotations, but no violations.

In the "Works" section, the "Orchestral music" and "Other compositions" sections are essentially lists. There is a List of compositions by Aram Khachaturian article, so these need to be restated in prose.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Երևանցի ^talk 03:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"According to the Los Angeles Philharmonic, "his works do not enjoy the international reputation that those of" Shostakovich and Prokofiev.[56]" - Should add do to the end of that sentence.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done--Երևանցի ^talk 03:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Layout is excellent.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
The reference sections appear inconsistent in their format. Some citations are short, and link to the reference section (i.e. "Geodakyan 1979, p. 18."). However, other book sources list the full work (i.e. "Cramer, Alfred W., ed. (2009). Musicians and Composers of the 20th Century-Volume 3. Salem Press. p. 766. ISBN 9781587655159."). And numerous articles are given with full details in the citation section, even though others are given shorthand and linked to the bibliography. There's no one reference style to use on Wikipedia, but there should be a consistent style within one article. I don't understand the purpose of maintaining separate citation and bibliography sections, when much of the citation section gives full bibliographies.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sources listed in the bibliography section are only those which are entirely about Khachaturian or have at least a section on him. Sources which simply mention Khachaturian in a few places (e.g. Cramer) are not listed in that section. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That's a very unusual method, but perfectly acceptable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
For the most part, strongly cited to solidly reliable sources. However, there is a statement with citation to Norman Lebrecht that is tagged as needing a better source, and there was a discussion on the talk page highlighting Lebrecht's unreliability at making the kind of claim cited here in the article. Either remove the sentence or find a similar discussion in a more solid reference.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Sentence removed. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
All content is verifiable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Excellent coverage of all aspects of this important composer.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Article is very focused on the topic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Highly neutral, all analysis is directly attributed to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Stable, no edit warring for quite some time. There was a dispute back in April, but it apparently fizzed out months ago.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:
All of the images check out okay, except possibly this one: File:Prokofiev_shostakovich_khachaturian.jpg. This image is claimed as public domain in the Russian Federation, as it is over 70 years after the life of the author. However, no authorship is given, so how do we know that the author died by 1944? And, even in that case, in the US, 100 years need to transpire after the author's death, or have been created before 1923, neither of which is the case. However, the image could still qualify for use in the US under fair use laws. But I think the authorship of this image needs to be confirmed, so that the correct licensing can be applied.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Image removed from the article. --Երևանցի ^talk 03:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are properly caption, when applicable, and are relevant to the topic.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:37, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: Several minor issue, but otherwise, a very good article, which, if and when the issues I've found are addressed, should be nominated for featured status.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 21:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Y Issues resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass or Fail: