Jump to content

Talk:Elijah Hewson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:57, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Launchballer (talk). Self-nominated at 11:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elijah Hewson; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.[reply]

  • About time this gets reviewed. Article was new enough at the time of the nomination and the article is fine overall with sourcing, neutrality and copyright concerns. Sources for the hook checks out. I personally prefer Alt1 since it puts emphasis more on Elijah over Bono. Good work here! Panini! • 🥪 01:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Elijah Hewson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Launchballer (talk · contribs) 04:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Royiswariii (talk · contribs) 05:54, 20 September 2024 (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.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
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). All of the citations and websites are reliable.
2c. it contains no original research.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). I'm little bit confused on Family Tree but it seems you have a citations for that so i'll approved it.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
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.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
7. Overall assessment. The article it was good and i'm little confused on that Family Tree section (I'm a newbie on GA Reviewing), but it seems are on good from the top to the end.

Vacant0

[edit]

Looks like another driveby review, so I'll go through this again and review it myself. First of all:

  • There is unlikely any copyright violation in the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector has reported only 11.5% in similarity.
  • There are no cleanup banners, such as those listed at WP:QF, in the article.
  • The article is stable.
  • No previous GA reviews. The review above did not address all six criteria, therefore I won't count it as I'm technically re-reviewing it.

Looks good for now. Let's go more in depth.

  • Prose, spelling, and grammar checking.
  • Checking whether the article complies with MOS.
    • The article complies with the MOS:LEDE, MOS:LAYOUT, and MOS:WTW guidelines. There is no fiction and embedded lists within the article, so I am skipping MOS:WAF and MOS:EMBED. Overall, the article is relatively short, so the section merging is appropriate, the lede's length is okay, and it summarises the article, and there are no biased words in the article.
  • Checking refs, verifiability, and whether there is original research.
    • References section with a {{reflist}} template is present in the article.
    • No referencing issues.
    • Most references are reliable.
      • What does make Ref 20 (music-news.com) reliable?
Per [1] they have an editor and staff, and this is a not terribly controversial claim made in an interview.
      • What does make Loris Cantarelli reliable?
This has gone through Hoepli, a publishing house, but out of an abundance of caution I've replaced it.
    • Spotchecked Ref 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 17, 22, 23, 28–all verify the cited content. AGF on other citations.
    • Copyvio already checked.
  • Checking whether the article is broad in its coverage.
    • Mention the place of birth in the body.
Done.
Done, although it was my understanding that topics should only be linked to once per article. What's the policy on this?
Once per major section in an article (MOS:LINKONCE). A topic is usually wikilinked once or twice (depending on the article's size) in the body. 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
    • Mention Neil McCormick's occupation.
I think adding "for The Daily Telegraph" should be sufficient for this, by all means advise if it isn't.
Yes, that's good enough. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:54, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • Checking whether the article is presented from an NPOV standpoint.
    • The article meets the criteria and is written in encyclopedic language.
  • Checking whether the article is stable.
    • As noted in the initial comments, the article has been stable.
  • Checking images.
    • Optional: Add alt text to the infobox image.
Done.
    • The infobox image is properly licensed.

Overall, it looks good for a short article, @Launchballer:. There are some minor issues that should be fixed, after which the article should retain its GA status. Cheers, Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed all of your concerns @Vacant0:.--Launchballer 22:12, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, looks good now. Congratulations. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Elijah_Hewson&oldid=1246700645"