Talk:Haim (band)/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: 3family6 (talk · contribs) 20:17, 3 February 2015 (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:
No copyvios detected, only some Wikipedia mirrors.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"... while Donna won a contest on The Gong Show in the 1970s covering a Bonnie Raitt song." - I'm assuming that this means that she was a singer, but an instrumentalist could cover a song as well.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone with "singing", which is the exact word the Guardian source uses. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"He is the son of Three Dog Night's Danny Hutton[15] and former member of the band Wires on Fire, who knew Este socially." - who knew Este? Hutton, or Wires on Fire? If that latter, wouldn't it be the members of the band who knew Este?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Salon source says "and floated in Este's social orbit" - I've copyedited this to make it clearer. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Final paragraph in the present activity section is a single-sentence paragraph. Merge this into an existing paragraph. There is another paragraph like this in the "Musical style" section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, but by adding new content, due to the "moving target" nature of this article. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the Reception section is more like the musical style section. Also, this sentence, "The group have become friends with singer-songwriter Taylor Swift, and together they have visited Catalina and Maui, Hawaii.[53]," is out of place, as it does not belong in this section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best section for this? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I'm not sure. I'm thinking it might be best to mention this, maybe with some wording changes, in the part where the "2014-present" section mentions Haim's appearances on Taylor Swift's tour.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:
Citations do not follow a consistent format. For instance, reference 3 reads ""Jewish singers Haim tipped as Sound of 2013". The Jewish Chronicle.]", reference 4 reads "Dodero, Camille (30 September 2013). "Falling for Haim". Spin. Retrieved 21 October 2014." and reference 5 reads "Campion, Freddie (February 28, 2012). "Band of the Week: HAIM". Vogue (New York City, USA: Condé Nast Publications). Retrieved December 12, 2012." The second and third examples both are acceptable, but the citations should follow a consistent format. Also, the Spin citation doesn't italicize the publication, and the Jewish Chronicle citation has a stray bracket.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now I don't believe this is actually part of the GA criteria, as far as I can tell you just need inline citations, and only then to information challenged or likely to be challenged, although for an article about a group of young, living people, that's more or less everything. Then consistent citations are part of the FA criteria. Still, it won't hurt to take the wikifork and the wikitrowel to this lot, so I'll get back to you! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria link to WP:IC, which states "There are many ways to add inline citations to an article. Each is acceptable under Wikipedia's citation style guideline, but a single article should use only one type." If this does not apply to GAs, I apologize for bringing it up here, but I figured since the criteria link to that guideline then what is given there is a GA requirement.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I will list any work that I think will improve the article, then fall back on the GA criteria if things become difficult or onerous. In this case, the work was a bit too gnomish for my liking, but I've swapped all citations over to US dates now. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
All content is cited to reliable sources.

There are some deadlinks, I will list as I find them: http://www.standard.co.uk/arts/music/soundcheck-haim-7682181.html

That's a 503 "Service unavailable" error to the London Evening Standard website. Given the history of the newspaper, I'd be amazed if that was permanent. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it works now. Sorry, I was doing this review right before I was on for my shift at work, so I rushed a bit at the end of the session and left things hanging.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This brought up a 404 error, though: http://www.mumfordandsons.com/news/usa-stopover-shows-announcement.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't think I added this, but generally I avoid citing official sites, as apart from being primary sources, they tend to deteriorate into dead links far too quickly when compared to news or magazine sites. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C. No original research:
All content cited to reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
Article stays within scope, covers only major aspects.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Focused on subject, no extraneous detail.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Neutral, fair representation. Analysis and reception is all supported with reliable sources.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No edit wars or other major disruptions in the article's recent history.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (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:
Images are licensed under Creative Commons.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Images are relevant, high-quality, and have suitable captions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 05:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overall: A bit of work needed, but mostly there.

All issues resolved.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pass or Fail:

Good to get a clean bill of health on "stability" - since the group have been nominated for a Grammy, the results of which are (IIRC) being announced today, the viewing traffic has exploded (it's on about 8,000 views per day at the mo) and as you can see from the history, keeping the article at GA status on the queue while defending it from good faith but non GA compliant edits from IPs and newbies has been .... challenging! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For stability, I'm willing to overlook passing instances of vandalism or editions of unsourced content. If things are rolled back very promptly, I'd consider the article stable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments so far, I'd have done more but the article seems to be hit by vandalism or at least unsourced BLP violations as I write this..... Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article is under protection now, so this should ensure stability.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I asked for it ;-) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:10, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note if article is nominated for FA

Right now, the article uses the band name as a plural noun, although technically in American English collective nouns are nearly always used in the singular. For GA criteria this is not necessary, as it is a stylistic issue, but if this article is an FA it should conform to American English standards. For the record, I, as an American, often use collective nouns as plurals, but apparently in formal American English this is incorrect.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, that :-/ .... does that mean the first paragraph in the lead changes to "The group's pop sound on its studio work stands in contrast to the more rock-based music of its live shows"? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Though you could re-phrase it to "the pop sound performed by the sisters on their studio work stands in contrast to the more rock-based music in their live shows."--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]