Talk:Cliff Williams/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Moisejp (talk · contribs) 06:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
Hi. In the next couple of days or so, I'll be reviewing this article for GA. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
There was one disambiguation link but I have fixed it. There are a couple of other links whose status is unclear, but I'm going to look into them more carefully next time. Moisejp (talk) 07:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
A few of the references are fan sites that are not reliable sources.
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
He's been with AC/DC for 33 years. I expected to see more highlights of his career with them. Besides the mention of the two Halls of Fame, his career after 1978 is summed up as "Williams has remained in AC/DC ever since."OK, fixed.
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- 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):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
I have made a bunch of edits and cleaned up various issues, but some major issues still remain. One is that a couple of the sources are fan sites and not reliable sources: #14 "Interview with Mark Eans" and #29 "AC/DC Info Base". Also, #28, it's not clear what that "quote" in quotation marks is supposed to represent. I would strongly recommend cutting the Equipment section, then you could get rid of some of these dubious sources. I find it's generally hard in music articles to include this kind of Equipment section without relying on fan sites. Also, I wonder whether non-musicians are largely interested in the specific instrument makes he uses. I'm not saying nobody is interested, but it may be relevant to fewer people, and as such seems less serious if it were cut.
The other big issue is that his 33 years in AC/DC are very under-represented. That section should be quite a bit longer. I also commented above that the lead is unbalanced, but I think if you added more to the AC/DC section, you would be able to make the lead more balanced. Moisejp (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the fansite: the first is a transcript of an interview (the intro on the link shows that)... the latter, I use because the website creator seems reliable (he works on AC/DC's website, has his interviews used in an official release). Well, the Equipment one is seen in the article I mostly modeled this on (as well as a recent bassist FA), so don't know if it needs to cut (I even added some more text and refs to it). Done some work now, think it still needs more expansion? igordebraga ≠ 18:58, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
- All right, you have convinced me about the reliability of the fan site. The fact that it was a transcript to an interview by itself doesn't necessarily make its use legitimate, but I was also convinced because it says that the author gave them permission to reprint it. That clears up the ref problems, and the Equipment section now seems fine.
- The lead seems a little bit on the short side but is I guess acceptable. It does summarize the article reasonably well. The info you added to the AC/DC section also brings it within the acceptable range. I guess there may not be much else that's notable that's specifically about Williams and not the whole band—so if readers want more info about the band they can look at the band article. So, good work, I'm passing this article. Moisejp (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)