Talk:Blonde on Blonde/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 20:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Linkrot: none found.

At last, an article about a really significant album. I shall be reviewing this over the next two days. I hope to publish a full review in two days or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
I can't fault the prose and it complies with key points of the MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
The article is well cited, sources all appear RS, no evidence of OR. All sources examined support the statements
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article covers the subject matter well, without digression into unnecessary trivia
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Article is stable
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):
One image and three short sound samples used. Image correctly licensed and captioned. Sound samples of less than 10% of total song length, with suitable FUR.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Having examined this article carefully, I am happy to pass it as being worthy of GA status. It looks to be at or near FA quality, perhaps a peer review could check that before nomination at FAC. Congratulations! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Jezhotwells! I'm so happy it passed. Congrats everyone. - I.M.S. (talk) 01:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Jez. Champagne all round. I think it's FA quality or very close. Shall we go for FAN - or a peer review first? My personal inclination would be: go for FAN. I'd welcome comments. Mick gold (talk) 08:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any strong objections, but let's discuss this on the WikiDylan talk page. I'll start the discussion there now. Moisejp (talk) 17:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]