Talk:Circus Juventas/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A preemptive thanks! BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 05:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bobamnertiopsis, it may take me a little while to get to it but I'll keep you posted on my progress. — Cirt (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I'll be here all week, as they say. Also, I know a lot of the refs are pulled from paywalled archives, so if you need me to pull any quotes to support anything, I'm happy to do it. Thanks again, BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bobamnertiopsis, could you please expand the lede intro sect, per WP:LEAD, so it can function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents? That's the only glaring issue I'm seeing right now, so rather than put this as GA on Hold, thought I'd just ask you here, before we proceed onwards. — Cirt (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond maybe the Music section which I realize is pretty lacking from the lead, are there any other sections or areas you'd recommend expanding upon? BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 18:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly some from Reception, and a bit more from History. — Cirt (talk) 23:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How's that, Cirt? BobAmnertiopsis ∴_ChatMe! 23:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Much better, I'll get to the rest of the review in a bit. — Cirt (talk) 23:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.	Writing style is indeed succinct and concise, perhaps a bit too much so for my tastes, but then again, sometimes I can be too verbose.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	I helped the nominator a bit with WP:LEAD guidelines, and now it looks much better.
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.	Duly cited throughout to appropriate sources.
	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).	Very good use of in-line citations throughout entire article.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article relies heavily upon secondary sources, which is a good thing.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Yes, article covers major aspects from multiple different viewpoints, as well.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Of adequate length to both remain focused on the subject matter at hand while also covering its depth and history quite well.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	It does appear to be written in a neutral tone, yes.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	No outstanding stability issues, upon inspection of article edit history and also of talk page history.
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.	One fair use image with appropriate rationale, hosted locally on en.wikipedia. All other images hosted on Wikimedia Commons with quite well done information and standardization, multiple even have WP:OTRS confirmation!
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Images are most certainly directly relevant to subject matter.
	7. Overall assessment.	Great job overall! — Cirt (talk) 00:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]